About situation around the article by A. Podrabinek

Up to the recent time a kebab house called “Anti-Soviet” was functioning in Moscow. One of veteran organizations complained of the kebab house signboard to the city authorities, and the district board demanded to change it. The owners tried to resist but surrendered under pressure of district authorities and the prefect of the Northern district Oleg Mitvol.

The change of signboard was responded by A. Podrabinek who was a famous dissident in the past and now is a journalist. However these are not the city authorities that are the main addressee of his article but the former Political bureau member V. Dolgikh heading now the veteran organization that requested to change the signboard, and anonymous “veterans”. Podrabinek poured out all his fury upon them. He stated that “these were you who were probably the prison guards in thosecampsandprisons, commissars in barrage squads and executioners at the execution grounds” adding that the evil in their persons should be punished and the least they can reckon on is the “scorn of progeny”.

In its turn the movement “Our folk”, especially representatives of the “Young guard”, responded to the article by Podrabinek as sharply. An article appeared on the “Young guard” website the author of which frankly calls Podrabinek a “fascist”, “scoundrel, nonentity and moral monster”. In the opinion of the author, “the purpose of all these podrabineks, bakushinskys and solidarities” is “to make all the subsequent generations believe that it were the USA that conquered Hitler during the World War II, that population of our country has no past to be proud of, … so that people would work for Transatlantic uncle in the afternoon and stupidly stare at TV in the evening sipping beer and taking chips after it”. The information appeared about threats to the journalist on the part of “Our folk”; however they refuted it and informed they would take Podrabinek to court on legal grounds. And some other famous liberals resolutely took Podrabinek’s part.

How one can estimate all the facts that happened?

1. The city authorities committed an obvious breach of law insisting on the change of a signboard. First of all, the law does not stipulate anywhere that public use of the word “anti-Soviet” is prohibited. Further, no addresses of the veterans and “respect to their feelings” can serve as a justification for illegal pressure from the authorities. There are people sharing the Soviet ideology and there are people not sharing it. The names of the avenue “Leninsky” and that of hotel “Sovetskaya” may insult the people who were imprisoned in Stalin’s concentration camps or lost their relatives there, as well as people who just did not like the Soviet power, but nobody is in a hurry to rename them.

2. With his article A. Podrabinek confirmed the point that fanaticism may be clothed anyhow. The fanatics usually don’t see the concrete people, they use solely the notions “people”, “crowd”, “fascists” etc. Yes, the period of Soviet power is a black spot in the history of Russia. But not only criminals lived in our country during these years but also millions of people who worked, suffered, and loved. Yes, fools were made of many of them by Stalin’s propaganda; they believed blindly in Communist slogans and cried bitterly at the burial of the leader. This was and is not their fault but their misfortune – like the misfortune of many nations that worshiped their leaders-criminals. And some of them preserved their blind love towards the Soviet power, the more so because of social-economic difficulties of recent decades. And if they even protest sincerely against the signboard “Anti-Soviet”, does this give Podrabinek the right to include them into the executioners in the lump thus insulting them? If the soldiers who fought the Nazism would not win, it’s hard to say what would be the fate of Podrabinek himself …

3. The proper “public” being indignant at the statement of Podrabinek uses the dusty stamps that filled our past so habitually: “to scoff at veterans”, “moral monster”, “impudent attempts of revisionism”, “deprive us of everything. Deprive of history, culture, self-consciousness, enslave us and reduce us to the level of laboratory rats”.

All this neo-Stalinist rhetoric shows the dangerous tendencies in development of our society, and for a part of its elite the authoritarian if not totalitarian ideology is still close being based right upon the ideas treating people as a crowd that may be manipulated not being fastidious in use of any means.

Thus, the controversy that started is the evidence of a total disease of our society that overwhelmed all its strata – authority, its protectors and critics-liberals. Russia is still very far from the democratic ideal when the authorities follow the legal norms and the citizens are really inspired with liberal and democratic spirit making them wise, tolerant or just merely tactful.

The position of some members of the Council on human rights under the President of RF is not correct either. Instead of listening to everyone involved into the conflict – veterans, youth movement “Our folk”, journalist Podrabinek, inviting them for discussion, letting them express their opinion, the Council starts protecting the author of an ambiguous article at once. Moreover, it actually affords threatening with sanctions towards the other part including application to the office of public prosecutor. Such a position hardly corresponds to the spirit and status of the respected public structure.

Sentence on the “Black hawks”

On October 8 the verdict on the case of so-called “Black hawks” was announced in Dorogomilovsky court of Moscow.

According to investigation data, on May 6, 2008 the “hawks” attacked 19-year-old Fyodor Markov and 16-year-old Pavel Novitsky in the underground train coach. Shouting “Allah akbar” and “cut the Russians” the malefactors had beaten the teenagers brutally, shot from pneumatic gun upon them several times and stabbed them with a knife. The young people shot their crime with a mobile phone video camera, and this record was introduced into the case materials later. Militia managed to detain one of the assailants at the underground station yet, and the others were detained later.

Most of the accused (they are all the Caucasians and three of them were born in Moscow) were among the students of juridical faculties of prestigious colleges officially.

During the examinations the arrested referred their activity to the fact that they fought against the skinheads and that their organization was intended to self-defense from neo-Nazis. They allegedly took the aggrieved for active figures of a skinhead band.

During the investigatory actions the militiamen kept two most active group participants under arrest and other young men were released after giving a written undertaking not to leave. One of the released – Ruslan Khalilov – was killed soon, and the “Militant organization of Russian nationalists” took the responsibility for the murder upon itself. The corresponding letter was placed on one of websites informing that Khalilov was shot “for attacks on Russian youth”.

The proceedings were initially instituted under accusation of hooliganism but it was reinterpreted later as a crime motivated by ethnic hatred. Finally the court sentenced the group members to 4-7-year imprisonment as the prosecutor demanded.

From the very beginning this case caused big public response. Its uniqueness was connected with the fact that not an organized group of Russian nationalists but an organized group of Caucasians was charged with causing damage to health basing upon ethnic hatred. And it is impossible but note that while there are many skinhead groups in the country, the group “Black hawks” is the only one of this kind as far as is known for the present.

The investigation had a task to examine the crime objectively and pass a fair punishment on the criminals. Any criminals-xenophobes whatever ethnic group they belong to should be tried equally strictly and according to common criteria whether a xenophobe-skinhead or xenophobe-Caucasian. And they should be tried strictly even if the aggrieved is a xenophobe himself. We think that the law-enforcement and judicial bodies were equal to the task in hand. The court passed the sentences being strict enough stressing the aggravating role of ethnic hatred while committing the crime. One would like just to hope that Khalilov’s killer would be found and punished strictly.

But the public had as complicated task. The crime of “Black hawks”, though being a single group, could however serve as a catalyst for anti-Caucasian moods and aggravate interethnic relations in the society that are tense anyway. It’s a credit to most mass media that the procedure seemed to have been interpreted objectively and reservedly enough, and anti-Caucasian appeals were heard only in nationalistic press and at DPNI and SS pickets in front of the court building.

But there are also deeper problems appearing in connection with this procedure. No doubt aggressive xenophobes and racists are available in any society but anyway the creation of such a group was a response to the actions of numerous skinhead groups of the titular ethnic group to a great extent – and the actions were similar to their pattern. Unfortunately it was not clarified completely whether the aggrieved were active skinheads (like some editions and TV channels’ information asserted). Without any justification of the assailants, this fact would permit making deeper conclusions concerning the sources of the crime. But it is clear anyway that absence of aggressive neo-Nazi ideology and numerous skinhead bands would also diminish the possibility of appearing of the “Black hawks”.

In any case the completed trial gives much food for thought to the law-enforcement bodies, officials and experts in the sphere of interethnic relations, migratory services and human rights activists. And it would be most desirable that the society would learn a useful lesson for itself: what may be the result of a chain reaction of crimes motivated by ethnicity.

In memory of A. Politkovskaya

Anna Politkovskaya was killed three years ago, on October 7, 2006, in Moscow, at the entrance to her house at Lesnaya street. The murder caused the broadest public response: Anna Politkovskaya wrote sharp materials about the events in Chechnya and around Chechnya and criticized the Russian authorities most toughly. The materials by Politkovskaya were most inconvenient for very many people – both in Chechnya and in Russia. Correspondingly, most various versions were advanced who could be the murder customer: leaders of Chechen republic, higher echelons of Russian authorities, V. Putin’s antagonists who wanted to arrange a provocation, Boris Berezovsky etc.

This murder of a big public figure is far from being the first in new Russia but practically all similar crimes remained unsolved – at least there was no success in determining their customers. But from the point of view of the investigation prospects, the case of murder of Anna Politkovskaya is notable on the background of other murders: from the very beginning the investigators got serious evidences – the criminal’s photo shot by video camera, his fingerprints; they succeeded in determining the owner of the motorcar used by supposed murderers for coming to the house. This all gave the hope for quick solution of the crime.

But the investigation finished, numerous court procedures took place but the results proved to be most modest: the crime customer was not determined, main executor of the crime is under international search and the others were found not guilty by jury. Moscow military district court rejected the application of relatives of Anna Politkovskaya about return of the proceedings on the murder of the journalist to the office of public prosecutor. Then the relatives filed a cassational appeal to the Supreme Court of RF that accepted the claim.

The course of the trial showed how deep the crisis of our judicial-investigation system is. It turned out that the materials of the case available in the court do not suit any of the procedure parties, and they all together requested to return the materials to the office of public prosecutor for combining them with other criminal proceedings. Suddenly new persons proved to be in sight of the investigation, and they are under arrest now (including also a former employee-operative of GUVD (Chief Directorate of home affairs) of Moscow) on charges of a series of murders.

On one hand, the discovery of new persons involved into the crime shows that the investigators go on working and there is a hope for final solution of the crime, for reaching the main result – arrest of the customer and main executor of the murder. In this case the country would know the truth at last – why was the opposition journalist killed. At the same time, the protracted trial increases distrust towards the investigatory bodies and many people do not believe in its successful completion thinking that the future may finally hold another unsolved celebrated political murder. In particular, the daughter of Anna Politkovskaya Vera spoke quite pessimistically: “Three years passed, and our family is gradually starting to loose the hope that all the chain of those involved into the crime would be found and the guilty would be punished”. Politkovskaya’s relatives make the suppositions (that are quite reasonable basing upon the case materials) that the special services may be involved into the murder and think that political will of the country leaders may become the principal factor of subsequent progress of the proceedings.

One can’t but agree with this. The murder of Anna Politkovskaya is not among common criminal offenses as her name is a symbol of critical attitude towards the authority in a sense. And the duty of authority in democratic country is to show that it protects all its citizens and especially opposition journalists. Solution of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and corresponding court verdict will not just mean the triumph of justice but also become a clear signal for all the criminals who attempt at the journalists in Russia so often.

National-radicals in the State Duma

On October 2 a round table “Immigration and ethnic relations in Moscow: the present and the future” took place in the State Duma; it was arranged by discussion club “The first” under Committee of the State Duma on the youth affairs. Unfortunately no interested and fruitful discussion came out as the Committee on the youth affairs is under control of deputies from the Liberal-democratic party of Russia professing xenophobic views. As a result, we heard the appeals inciting interethnic hatred again.

One of leaders of Movement against illegal immigration Vladimir Yermolayev presented fantastic figures of number of “illegal migrants” in Moscow: 1-1,5 mln Azerbaijanis, by 1,5 mln of Georgians and Armenians , and hundreds thousand citizens of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Yermolayev’s speech consisted of habitual migrant-phobic stamps about “wave of migrants’ criminality”: thus, 70% of rapes are allegedly committed by labor migrants. The proposition being traditional for nationalists was presented as a universal receipt for deliverance from all the troubles: to close the boundaries with the CIS countries. A candidate to Moscow city duma deputies from LDPR Alexey Ivanov went even further stating that potential immigrants must “try to earn” the rights to reside in Moscow. He gave an example of Nazi Germany: he said Germany of 1920s suffered from migrants’ inflow and later on the Nazis corrected the migratory policy successfully and gained the growth of birth rate.

Alexander Sevastyanov depicted the migrants as a main reason for tension at the accommodation and labor markets. He made a special stress upon description of problems of sexual services’ market accusing “migrants” (Mr. Sevastyanov numbered also the residents of Russian North Caucasus among them) of “perverting our women”, infecting Muscovites with venereal diseases etc. He also stated the idea of adopting three laws that would envisage depriving illegal migrants of protection from the law (i.e. actual legalization of murders motivated by xenophobia towards this population group), inviting the labor migrants “to the state work” on a centralized basis and compulsory working off the cost of their deportation by illegal migrants at public works (up to uranic mines inclusive).

Many other participants of “round table” also spoke on the same lines. The real rebuff to such statements was given just in the speech of the head of Moscow anti-fascist center Yevgeny Proshechkin. The reporter attracted the attention to unreliability of figures provided by nationalists and becoming a basis for apocalyptic pictures of “domination of migrants” and “criminality of migrants” presented to the society; the official state statistics gives quite different figures. And in the opinion of Ye. Proshechkin, aspiration of militia to lump the blame for the criminality growth onto migrants may be an attempt to disguise its own incapability to work. He also noted that militiamen and journalists taking interviews from them often mix up the notions “crime” and “delinquency” as well as notions “newcomers” and “immigrants”, and the myth that these are labor migrants who commit considerable number of crimes in Russia is the consequence of such confusion. Speaking about possibility of introducing visa regime with CIS countries (radical nationalists insist so much on this), the head of Moscow anti-fascist center stressed that, firstly, this would be contrary to the world tendency of reducing the border barriers and, secondly, this would affect negatively the ability of Russia to compete with USA for influence upon the post-Soviet republics.

Moscow bureau for human rights and Moscow anti-fascist center note that the State Duma turns into the site for dissemination of xenophobic ideas not for the first time. The ideology of extreme nationalism thus acquires some legitimacy. This is not just dangerous but also contradicts the statements of the Russian leaders and of the party “United Russia” dominating in the State Duma about necessity of combat against xenophobia and extremism. We call upon the speaker of the State Duma Boris Gryzlov and leaders of parties that signed the Anti-fascist pact in 2006 to interfering into this situation and putting an end to the practice having the result of dissemination of misanthropic ideas in the supreme legislative body of Russia.

DPNI didn’t go to GUVD

Judging by the mass media, creation of a new public council of representatives of more than twenty youth organizations including such as “Slavic Union” (SS), “Fair Russia”, “Resistance”, “Our folk”, “Movement against illegal immigration” (DPNI) etcwas planned under GUVD of Moscow on the initiative of its new chief major-general Vladimir Kolokoltsev.

Proposed inclusion of representatives of odious nationalistic organizations “Movement against illegal immigration” (DPNI) and “Slavic Union” (SS) into the “councilors” would be actually an expression of frank connivance towards their anti-constitutional and unlawful deeds. What “agreements” of Moscow militia with national-radicals can be dealt with at all?!

According to deputy general public prosecutor of Russia Viktor Grin, the Office of general public prosecutor ascribes the “Movement against illegal immigration” and “Slavic Union” to the most active extremist associations of Russia, equally with organizations “National-socialist society”, “Army of people’s will”, “Northern brotherhood”. Some members of these organizations were convicted under corresponding clauses of the CC of RF.

On October 1 the chief of public relations department of Ministry of home affairs (MVD) of Russia Valery Gribakin stated that the public council under GUVD of Moscow does not include representatives of radical nationalistic organizations. V. Gribakin supposed that “general Kolokoltsev was misunderstood” and that in fact “it dealt with the matter that the public disturbers would be called to legality, and on the part of the public council members too”.

About the case of Demyanyuk

The progress of the trial against Ivan Demyanyuk attracts the public attention for more than a year. It should be reminded that late in 1970s the charges were pressed against the American citizen John Demyanyuk that it was him who was “Ivan the Terrible”, prison guard in former Nazi concentration camp Treblinka where he operated the gas chambers, tortured the prisoners brutally and participated in the killing of more than 100 thousand people, mostly Jews.

In 1986 Demyanyuk was extradited from USA to Israel. In April 1988 Demyanyuk was sentenced to death but in 1993 the Supreme court of Israel repealed the sentence unanimously: it considered the proofs that Demyanyuk was in fact “Ivan the Terrible” insufficient though it ascertained that Demyanyuk worked as a guard in the concentration camp. After 7-year imprisonment Demyanyuk returned to USA and his American citizenship was restored.

In 2001 the new trial against Demyanyuk began due to discovery of new archival data, and in December 2005 the decision was made about expulsion of Demyanyuk to Ukraine but the procedure delayed due to clarification whether the tortures existed in Ukraine. As a result, the immigration department of USA came to an agreement with Germany about deportation of Demyanyuk to this country: the Munich office of public prosecutor accused him of complicity in the killing of about 29 thousand Jews in the death camp Sobibor. The deportation was postponed for some time at the request of his relatives who insisted on impossibility of deportation due to state of health of the aged Demyanyuk. And only after the police was convinced of his legal capacity, he was deported. According to the results of medical expert examination Demyanyuk was found capable to take part in the court sessions in Germany but the maximal load was restricted to two sessions of 90 minutes a day.

Thus the whole progress of the Demyanyuk case is the evidence how scrupulously the legal norms are treated in the civilized countries. In Israel where many citizens or their relatives immediately suffered in the Holocaust, Demyanyuk was found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidences. The judicial bodies take the norms of treating the prisoners in the countries of supposed deportation into account as well as state of health of the accused – while the criminal past of the accused is obvious.

But such civilization norms do not exist for some Ukrainian officials. They just act according to the principle “to save our own folk”: the regional council of Lvov adopted the appeal to the president of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, prime-minister Yulia Timoshenko and the Supreme Rada. The deputies request to plead for Demyanyuk asserting that an international plot exists against him and that all the archival documents were fabricated in KGB. They are not confused with the fact that Israeli court did not acknowledge Demyanyuk “Ivan the Terrible” right basing upon KGB documents according to which another person appeared with this name. The deputies are not interested in clarification of the facts of the case, documents, and proofs whether Demyanyuk murdered or not. They know in advance that “an absolutely innocent man is accused of what he didn’t do”.

Instead of examining the regrettable past finally (and there is lots of blood on the hands of Ukrainian collaborators of the epoch of the World War II, and first of all in the Western Ukraine), establishing the truth, the Lvov deputies advance again the idea of “international plot” and demand freedom for Demyanyuk. The statement of Lvov deputies fits in with the current tendencies of official Ukraine for making heroes of Nazi criminals, glorification of UNA-UNSO and connivance to anti-Semites completely. And the international European structures and human rights organizations should pay attention to this.

About punishment of paedophiles

On September 30 the bill was introduced into the State Duma proposing to toughen the punishment of the convicts for paedophilia, in particular to apply the chemical castration to such persons. Such a radical proposal is connected with abrupt growth of sexual character crimes towards the persons under age. Thus, according to the data of the bill author, the deputy Anton Belyakov being the leader of movement “Our project is Health”, during recent six years the number of sexual crimes against the juvenile grew 26 times according to the official statistics data. In 2008 1,3 thousand children suffered from sexual violence in Russia and 5 233 children – from non-violent sexual crimes. The situation is aggravated by the fact that actually every second of the accused for grave crimes against children got early release on parole and the cases are frequent when former convicts commit similar character actions again. It is non-random that in 2008 the Investigatory committee under the office of public prosecutor insisted on abolition of early release on parole for paedophiles and in summer 2009 the President of RF introduced the law on toughening of criminal liability for sexual character crimes committed against the persons under age, to the State Duma.

Anton Belyakov proposes in the explanatory note to the bill to apply the chemical castration “for rape and sexual character violent actions towards the child aged less than 14 years old and for sexual intercourse and lecherous actions towards children aged less then 12 years old”. The procedure of chemical castration is the introduction of a special medicine into the man’s organism – a modified form of testosterone blocking the activity of male hormone, and this leads in its turn to complete suppression of sexual attraction.

The proposed bill, with all its urgency as the paedophilia is growing in Russia menacingly, causes many problems that should be examined thoroughly. The paedophilia is predominantly a disease indeed that can’t be healed with ordinary criminal punishment. So the suppression of sexual attraction using chemistry looks reasonable at first glance. On the other hand, to some extent paedophilia may be a consequence of viciousness in contemporary satiated and sexually emancipated society. In this case the acts of paedophilia no doubt require criminal punishment but can the chemical castration serve as an adequate punishment in this case, taking into account that the person who committed a crime may be remorseful and take the road of rectification? The more so because taking of such a medicine may cause the hormonal disturbance for the patient in the opinion of some doctors and sometimes cancer diseases too. Further, it is not studied yet how this procedure may affect the higher cerebral centers. Some psychiatrists think that castration may affect the psychics of a paedophile negatively just embittering him. Besides, it is well-known that many sexual crimes are committed right by the men having problems with their sexual potency.

The chemical castration is however a reversible procedure and the effect of a medicine lasts for a limited time. One can admit theoretically that after the criminal takes his “road of rectification”, the punishment as a chemical castration may be terminated. But how can one make sure that the criminal won’t commit sexual deeds towards the children any more? On the other hand, permanent application of the medicine is quite an expensive matter: except permanent taking of medicine, the paedophile should be under permanent control of law-enforcement bodies and doctors.

As a result, the opinions of not only doctors but also jurists concerning possibility of application of chemical castration were divided. Some of them refer to successful foreign experience: according to some estimates, after application of chemical castration the number of repeated crimes reduced considerably – by 50 and even by 80%. This method is applied in some states of the USA, in France, Germany. In Italy this initiative found no support. In Israel an experiment of chemical castration of paedophiles is conducted but by consent of paedophiles themselves (long-term imprisonment is an alternative).

Opponents of this measure in Russia think that the fear of imprisonment affects the criminal much more than chemical castration (taking into account that especially cruel attitude towards the paedophiles among the criminals becomes apparentintheplaces of confinement). Besides, general problems in judicial-law-enforcement practice lead to the fact that up to 30% of the innocent stay in places of confinement according to some estimates. Thus, it may well be so that the chemical castration would be applied to the innocent people, and with unpredictable medical consequences.

In other words, introduction of the proposed measure requires thorough elaboration but it is most obvious that taking a comprehensive complex of measures for combat against such a terrible phenomenon as paedophilia is necessary.

The ministry of justice tries to establish order on the Internet

The Ministry of justice of RF prepared a draft federal law “On introducing changes into certain legislative acts of RF on the issues of providing security of use of state informational resources” envisaging criminal liability for break-in of state websites. According to clause 272-1 of the new law (“Illegitimate access to the state informational systems and (or) state informational resources contained in them”):

1. Illegitimate access to the state informational systems and (or) state informational resources contained in them including those placed in the “Internet” network that entailed elimination, blocking, modification or duplication of information, disturbance of functioning of the state informational system – is punished with a penalty of 200-500 thousand rubles or in amount of salary or other income of the convict during the period of three years, or with correctional work for the period from one to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years;

2. The same deed committed by a group of persons in preliminary collusion, or by an organized group or a person having access to the state informational systems including those functioning within critically important objects and (or) to the state informational resources contained in them due to his official position, is punished with imprisonment for the term from three to seven years with deprivation of right to occupy certain positions or be involved into certain activity for the period up to three years or without the same.

Tough measures taken towards the persons executing breaks-in of the state websites (“hackers”) seem completely reasonable. Such breaks-in that were already recorded in various countries of the world may make a threat for normal functioning of the state governing, bank-financial system and security of the country.

At the same time it seems that tough measures should be also spread upon the cases of break-in of private but not only state websites. Any website owner, Internet-provider must feel protected from cyber-criminals. For unknown reason nothing is said in the law about this, and this causes regret.

But another clause of the bill looks much more important and very disputable, namely clause 15-3 according to which “operators of services in the “Internet” network working in the Russian segment of “Internet” network are obliged to submit the information about users and services rendered to them using “Internet” network as well as other information necessary for implementation of tasks these bodies are entrusted with, to the authorized state bodies exercising operational search activities or provision of security of Russian Federation, in cases envisaged by legislation of Russian Federation” and “suspension of rendering services using “Internet” network to juridical and physical persons is executed by operators of services of “Internet” network basing upon motivated decision in written form of one of the heads of the body exercising operational search activities or provision of security of Russian Federation in cases determined by legislation of Russian Federation”.

Nowhere is specified in this clause that the information about Internet users can be submitted to the “state bodies exercising operational search activities or provision of security of Russian Federation” only according to the court decision. Thus the danger of unauthorized interference of special services into private life of the citizens appears, and this contradicts the fundamentals of the Constitution of RF. Item 2 of the same clause just aggravates the doubts: it states that “the order of interaction of operators of services of “Internet” network with authorized state bodies exercising operational search activities or provision of security of Russian Federation is established by the Government of Russian Federation” – in other words, it deals with governmental decrees but not with court decisions.

The bill already caused a heated response of Internet-community and criticism of human rights activists, the more so because a precedent was available not long ago when the Ministry of communication prepared a disputable decree on provision of access of special services to the mail of the citizens. Appearing of two documents of this kind one after another may serve as a dangerous signal for the society being an evidence of provision of unlimited authority to the special services and absence of guarantees of personal immunity for the citizens. Such experience is already well-known for our country that’why the text of the bill must be revised so that no doubt concerning its correspondence to the Constitution of RF would appear.

Daghestan: regrettable lessons of the decade

It is ten years since the moment when Chechen militants headed by Shamil Basayev invaded the territory of neighboring republic of Daghestan from Chechnya. Well-trained militants armed with mortars and machine-guns managed to penetrate to the helicopter base of federal forces and capture several dozens of villages overcoming the resistance of local residents. But already in several days a combat-ready volunteer corps was created that fought violently for every village together with federal troops.

The battles were given during August and September and finished with a defeat of militants; about 1500 militants were eliminated during this time, 2800 Russian servicemen perished (987 were wounded) as well as many local residents.

The attack of the militants proved to be not an occasional episode but it fit in with the events in the North Caucasus. In 1996 in Khasavyurt the armistice was signed that put an end to the first Chechen campaign being not too successful for federal forces and having brought enormous number of victims both among Russian servicemen and peaceful Chechen civilians. Chechen republic actually got the right for independence but there was no question of building a civilized state. Norms of Shariah were introduced on the territory of Chechnya in their cruelest form, with public executions. Kidnapping of people and plunders were broadly done. Radical Islamists being generously supported by coreligionists from abroad nurtured further plans of dissemination of Islam on the territory of Russia, and this assumed committing terrorist acts and provocations on the territory of other regions of Russia. As a result the military operations were not confined to the defeat of militants in Daghestan but moved onto the territory of Chechnya. During the second Chechen campaign the active forces of militants were defeated finally, and Islamic republic of Ichkeria finished its existence. Chechnya started its restoration as a Russian region.

The operation in Daghestan, except the fact that it commemorated a turning point in confrontation of militants and Russian federal forces and initiated the new stage of development of Chechnya, taught several important lessons:

1. Invasion of militants showed that it is impossible to figure on peace agreements with militarized formations of people whose motivation is the religious fanaticism being incited skillfully and supported with big money – in addition, if the revenge for death of their relatives and friends is the motive force of many of militants as a consequence of regrettable previous events.

2. The complicated religious-political factors of life of peoples of the Caucasus should be analyzed much more thoroughly. Thus, in Daghestan the conflict of two branches of Islam actually took place – radical Wahabism of militants and more traditional Sunnite faith of the republic.

3. Local volunteer corps that resisted the militants furiously played the most important role in successful completion of Daghestani drama. Thus, local residents proposed the federal troops to conduct aimed fire upon their houses in order to dislodge the militants from there. Reasonable forming of Caucasian policy requires taking into account the peculiarities of each separate region, its historical and cultural development and relationship with other regions.

4. The victory in military operation does not mean the completion of confrontation at all as it passes into the form of terroristic activity. Soon after defeat of militants the explosions of houses followed in Moscow, Byunaksk and Volgodonsk as well as other terrorist acts. The situation became extremely tense in Daghestan during recent two years. News about deaths of religious figures, officials, and journalists come one after another. Possibility of growth of extremist moods and radicalization of a part of Moslems in Daghestan should not be underestimated either though Daghestan showed solidarity with the federal center in events of 1999. Such dynamics shows obvious insufficiency of efforts of economic, cultural, and religious policy pursued in the republic.

And finally, the informational policy pursued by federal and local authorities is the most important factor. The population must get exact and unbiased information about the current events, and at present this unfortunately often does not take place. Thus, according to July VTsIOM interrogation of 2009, 24% of the interrogated pointed to the USA government as the most interested in invasion of militants, 5% - to Caucasian traders in Moscow and 3% - to official governments of other Moslem countries. Thus, about one third of the interrogated provided obviously absurd suppositions (sometimes having the xenophobic motives).

Let us hope that tragic lessons of ten years’ remoteness would profit our whole society.

About new bill of MVD of RF

The Ministry of home affairs (MVD) of RF developed a bill envisaging establishment of public administrative surveillance over some groups of adult convicts who were released from institutions of confinement.

It is proposed to establish the administrative surveillance over those who were convicted for grave and especially grave crimes and “did not take the road of rectification” during their staying in prison – and therefore may commit a new crime. The conclusion whether the prisoner took his road of rectification is provided by corresponding correctional institution or a body of home affairs. Similar normative act was also in force during the Soviet time until 1993 but unlike the current one it envisaged no judicial order of reviewing the issue of establishment of administrative surveillance over former prisoners. In this respect the bill is of more civilized character.

It is supposed that the court can establish such restrictions for the former prisoner as ban for visiting some places in the city or in the district where the person under surveillance resides, for leaving his house during certain time, for departure from this human settlement without permission of the body of home affairs. The person under surveillance must come to militia from one to four times a month; he can be called for conversation or for giving written explanations concerning the issues connected with pursuance of administrative control regulations. Besides, the employees of bodies of home affairs can visit the house or apartment of the person under surveillance.

The argumentation of the bill authors comes to the fact that such measures are able to reduce the recurrent criminality. Permanent public control over the released prisoner would prevent from committing crimes in their opinion. Indeed, the share of repeated commissions of the convicted criminals is high, and the problem should be solved. But would the proposed bill help in its solution?

There are strong doubts about this. Maybe the new bill would facilitate the life of militia that would have a chance to keep the potential criminal in its field of view but it would hardly profit the criminal himself. First of all, former criminal must have chances to begin a new life – be provided with job, corresponding social conditions etc. Nothing is said about this in the new bill. Instead of calling him to militia four times a month, it would be better to help him with employment. Besides, our correctional institutions’ system is arranged in such a way that far from everyone turns over a new leaf, especially the criminals who committed grave crimes – on the contrary, the prison just “hardens” many people and they are ready for further crimes. And then no summons to militia and no “curfew” would become an obstacle for a criminal. Further, the head of the correctional institution would give the references of the former prisoner. But his opinion is subjective, complicated personal relations could exist between him and the convict, and he may appraise the person unfairly and thus actually spoil his further life.

And finally - and many human rights activists attracted attention to this circumstance – the new bill contradicts the constitutional norms as its adoption means that the person who had already served the punishment for his crime actually gets the repeated punishment that is not envisaged by the Criminal code.

Explosions of apartment houses: the number of questions is growing

Ten years passed since the time when a terrible wave of terrorist acts rolled across Russia – explosions of apartment houses when lots of people perished and were wounded as a result of them. On September 4, 1999 a truck exploded that was parked beside a house in Buynaksk (Daghestan) and filled with tons of explosives. 64 people perished, 146 were wounded. On the night of September 9, 1999 a mighty explosion destroyed the apartment house at Guryanov street in Moscow. 100 peopleperishedand 690 – were wounded. On September 13 a bomb equivalent to 300 kg of trotyl exploded in the basement of the house at Kashirsky highway. 124 people perished, 13 – were wounded. On September 16 a truck exploded beside a house in Volgodonsk (Rostov region). 19 people perished and 89 – were wounded.

The population was stricken with terror and panic in those days. The basements were urgently sealed, volunteer squads of residents were on duty near the houses round-the-clock looking intently into the strangers’ faces.

Reserved lines of investigation, unclear circumstances of tragedies (for example, how it was possible to place such amount of explosives into the house basement), strange incidents (like events in Ryazan when either counter-terrorist training was conducted or the imitation of a terrorist act took place or the explosives failed to work) led to numerous versions of the explosions. Both militants from the Caucasus were accused and Russian authorities that allegedly arranged the explosions themselves to provoke the second Chechen campaign.

Then the tension gradually decreased. Overwhelming majority of militants who were acknowledged to be involved into the explosions by investigation were either eliminated or arrested. Monuments were erected on the places of exploded houses and people come here on the days of tragedies to pay homage to the memory of the dead.

But did the decisive changes take place in the country since that time? Did the citizens of Russia, especially those of North-Caucasian republics, feel that they might go to bed quietly without a risk to be exploded up to the morning? It is during these very sad jubilee days that the terrorist activity in the North Caucasus flared up terribly again. We hear regularly about explosions, attacks on militiamen. Neither elimination of famous militants nor life imprisonment for their companions-in-arms could prevent new terrorist acts – though in a comparatively small part of Russia.

Even if one considers that special services and law-enforcement bodies of the country achieved their maximal successes in search and punishment of criminals (and not everyone agrees with this), then the work of law-enforcers does not solve the essence of the problem. The roots of terrorism must be eliminated, and this means solution of an enormous complex of problems with participation of all the strata of the society. Terrorism is caused by most various problems including relatively new ones. For example, tense atmosphere that was formed during recent years due to migration of labor resources and is just aggravating, causes xenophobic moods, racial, interethnic and inter-religious hatred that is a nutrient medium for terrorism. So it is necessary to combat not just against the consequences but also against the reasons for them.

And the most important thing is that it should be clear for the people that the state takes care of them, protects them and considers them to be its principal asset. Alas, it seems this does not take place yet. Not long ago the lawyer of the aggrieved from the house explosions in Moscow I. Trunov stated that during past 10 years the compensation assigned by the court was not yet paid to the aggrieved due to explosions. Just one family received scanty money from millions rubles won via suits.

And if this is really so then the state shows extreme cynicism and complete indifference towards the fate of its citizens. But in this case we would never manage to cope with terrorism. It is just not clear why I. Trunov informed about this only now. And the position of the lawyer is not understandable either: “We decided not to advance vacuous court decisions full of pathos as there were no prospects for payments”. I.e. the lawyer agreed in advance that the court decisions on the cases of the aggrieved from explosions would not be carried out? Then whom and what did he plead for?

In any case the authorities must pay most serious attention to all these facts and thus place a brick into prevention of new tragedies.

Resolution with semi-truth

On September 23 the Seym of Poland adopted the resolution condemning invasion of the Red Army into West Ukraine and West Byelorussia in 1939. The document states that Poland “became a victim of two totalitarianisms: Nazism and Communism”. The invasion result was “Soviet occupation of a half of Poland and genocide towards Polish citizens, and Katyn became the most tragic part of it. It was a symbol of murders of captive Polish officers”. The Seym rejects the attempts of “falsification of history, underestimation of crimes of the Communists and refusal of acknowledgement of Katyn crime to be the genocide”.

Further the document authors state that many other peoples of Central and Eastern Europe shared the Polish fate and stress that scale, duration of Stalin’s crimes and number of victims “gave the signs of genocide to these crimes including the Katyn crime”.

The resolution caused abrupt reproof of the Russian State Duma where the Seym statement was criticized in toughest expressions and named a “falsification of history”. The Russian Ministry of foreign affairs also made a similar sharp statement: “one can just regret that the supreme legislative body of Poland while touching upon the most delicate subject that affects the feelings of not just Poles and Russians but also both Ukrainians and Byelorussians introduces bias and politicized character into it. The resolution adopted by the Seym of Poland causes serious damage for the efforts of developing normal good-neighborly relations between our countries”.

Yes, there was the occupation of a part of Poland according to the criminal plan of Molotov-Ribbentrop, there were repressions against Poles, and there was Katyn execution. After all, the Communist regime was maintained in Poland for many decades after the war with the Soviet bayonets.

But the truth stated in resolution is not complete. This is rather what is called “semi-truth” – as the historical reality was much more complicated. It is not noted in the resolution that the Soviet Union signed the pact with Hitler due to the policy of appeasement of fascists pursued by Western powers.

Nothing is said either in the resolution about earlier non-aggression pact that was concluded by Poland itself with Germany in early 1930s. Nothing is said about policy of colonization of Byelorussia and Western Ukraine. In 1919-1920 dozens thousand soldiers of the Red Army taken prisoners perished or were eliminated in Polish camps for prisoners of war. Exact number of captive Red Army soldiers is unknown. In the central battle of this war near Warsaw the losses of the Red Army numbered 25 thousand people according to the lowest estimates and about 60 thousand became Polish captives. The largest camps where the Red Army soldiers were kept were the camps in Strzalkow, Szczypiorno, four camps in Brest fortress and a camp in Tuchol. Finally, nothing is said about half million Russian soldiers that gave their lives for liberation of Poland from Nazism: two monstrous regimes – Stalinism and Nazism – should be hardly compared by their cruelty but it should be recalled that the Nazis did not attribute Poles to “Aryan nations”, and according to Hitler’s plans the most tragic fate was expecting them in case of Hitler’s victory.

Adoption of such a resolution can be hardly ascribed to clever political steps of current Polish legislators. Peace and consent between our countries can be achieved just via balanced, unbiased policy aimed for the benefit of peoples and basing upon objective and honest historical studies.