	June 29th 2005 · ORChD · PRINTER FRIENDLY FORMAT · E-MAIL THIS · ALSO AVAILABLE IN:

Bill Bowring's report on the situation around ORChD

The report on the situation with the RCFS is published

From 16 June till 18 June, 2005 Bill Bowring, the director of Human Rights and Social Justice Institute, London, worked in Nizhny Novgorod. His trip was aimed at clarifying the situation with pressure imposed upon the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society by various state bodies of the Russian Federation. Bill Bowring was appointed by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) to travel to Nizhny Novgorod. His mission was funded by “Front Line”, the Irish non-governmental organization that is International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. Bill Bowring has prepared the report on the findings of his mission to Nizhny Novgorod that the Information Centre at the RCFS offers our readers.

BAR HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF ENGLAND AND WALES

WITH THE SUPPORT OF

FRONT LINE – THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

ACTIONS OF STATE BODIES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS NGOs IN NIZHNII NOVGOROD

REPORT OF A MISSION TO NIZHNII NOVGOROD, 16 TO 18 JUNE 2005

BY PROFESSOR BILL BOWRING

BARRISTER, PROFESSOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AT LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, BAR HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference of my visit were set out in my Letter of Accreditation of 23 May 2005, as follows:

23 May 2005

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

The Bar Council of England and Wales represents over 12,000 independent barristers, legal academics and lawyers in Government service in the United Kingdom. The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) is an independent group of specialist barristers and experts who work on a voluntary basis to develop law and human rights protection throughout the world. BHRC has appointed Professor William Bowring to travel to Nizhnii Novgorod between Thursday 16 and Saturday 18 June 2005 for the following purposes:

To investigate the situation concerning the actions of state bodies in relation to the Society for Russian-Chechen Friendship

To meet, as far as possible, the responsible persons within the MVD, FSB and other state structures

To indicate to the authorities and to local and national media that there is international concern surrounding this case, and to seek explanations and reassurances

To provide information as to possible remedies or avenues of recourse at the domestic or international levels

BHRC would be grateful to the authorities in Nizhnii Novgorod for all facilities and courtesies which may be extended to Professor Bowring during his visit.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Yours sincerely

Peter Carter QC

Chairman

Bar Human Rights Committee

This letter was translated into Russian, and photocopies of the original letter and a translation into Russian were given to each of my interlocutors in Nizhni Novgorod.

I am very grateful to Front Line – The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, an NGO based in the Republic of Ireland, which funded my Mission.

I am also grateful to Mr Stanislav (Stas) Dmitrievsky, for his constant assistance during my visit, and for sharing with me his passionate interest in and commitment to the architectural heritage of Nizhnii Novgorod.

As set out below, I was received with the greatest courtesy and assistance by all the officials whom I met during my visit.

BACKGROUND

The background of concern which gave rise to my visit is well set out in the Statement of 10 June 2005 by the International Helsinki Federation, contained in Annex 1 to this Report.

In addition, on 3 June 2005 Amnesty International issued a Public Statement entitled “Russian Federation: Nizhnii Novgorod Society for Human Rights ordered to halt activities” This is contained in Annex 2.

FINDINGS OF THE MISSION

1. As appears from the two Annexes to this Report, there were three main matters of concern giving rise to the decision to send me to Nizhnii Novgorod.

2. These were:

· Criminal prosecution concerning articles in the newspaper “Pravo-Zashchita” (Human Rights Protection)

· Actions by the Tax Inspectorate of the Ministry of Finance, concerning the Society for Russian-Chechen Friendship (SRCF)

· Actions by the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice, concerning SRCF and the Nizhnii Novgorod Society for Human Rights (NOPCh)

The relationship between the various NGOs in Nizhnii Novgorod

3. A human rights group was founded in Nizhnii Novgorod in 1990 and was the first human rights organisation in the Volga region. In 1993 the group established the Regional Public Organisation – Nizhnii Novgorod Society for Human Rights (NOPCh). NOPCh was registered at the Department of Justice of the Nizhnii Novgorod Council of Peoples Deputies with number No.401 on 31 August 1993. NOPCh was included in the Unified State Register of Legal Persons on the basis of the State Number 1025200021736. Its (out of date) web-site is to be found at http://www.uic.nnov.ru/hrnnov/rus/nnshr/index.htm.

4. On the basis of NOPCh a number of independent structures were established:

· The Nizhnii Novgorod Peacemaking Group

· The League of Prisoners’ Mothers

· The Youth Human Rights Centre

· The Women’s Human Rights Group

· The Centre for Aid to Migrants

· The Society for Russian-Chechen Friendship (Inter-Regional Organisation) - SRCF

· The Nizhnii Novgorod Regional Organisation “Committee Against Torture”

5. SRCF was registered on 21 June 2000, with Registration No. 1568 – OP. It is funded by the US governmental body “National Endowment for Democracy” (NED), the EC, and the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. Immediately prior to me visit to Nizhnii Novgorod I met the EC Delegation’s Task Manager for this project, Tatyana Bokaryeva. She was delighted that I was going there, and under the auspices of BHRC.

6. NOPCh is also one of the founders of the Regional Public Organisation “Nizhnii Novgorod Human Rights Protection Association”.

7. I met Mr Igor Kalyagin, the Executive Director of the Committee Against Torture, and he told me that three cases taken by the Committee to the European Court of Human Rights some years ago have now been communicated to the Russian Government, and a direct result has been the re-opening of criminal investigations into members of the police. There does not seem to be any connection between these developments and the events which gave rise to my visit.

8. The newspaper “Pravo-Zashchita” (Human Rights Protection) was founded by NOPCh in 1996, and appears irregularly, though in principle monthly. There have been 64 issues to date. It is registered with the Volga Regional Direction for Registration and Control for the Observance of Legality in Oblast Press and Mass Information No. S 1191. The newspaper was founded with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy (USA). The print-run is 5,000 copies, and the paper, which has 24 pages, is free of charge. There is an electronic version up to the year 2000 at http://www.uic.nnov.ru/hrnnov/rus/nnshr/paper/, and http://www.sci-nnov.ru/massmedia/papers/nnpapers/pravo/.

9. The Editor of “Pravo-Zashchita” is Stanislav Mikhailevich Dmitrievsky, who is also Executive Director of SRCF. Increasingly, the news content of “Pravo-Zashchita” is provided by SRCF and its network of correspondents in Chechnya.

10. About one and a half months prior to my visit SRCF moved to more convenient new offices, in a building which was previously a “Dom Byta” – House of Being. The new offices are much larger, 50 square metres rather than 35 as previously. Phone lines had been installed by the time of my visit. There are several offices and a good sized meeting room.

11. I was unable to meet Oksana Chelysheva. She was detained in Moscow by a family illness.

The criminal prosecution

12. On 11 January 2005, a criminal case was commenced in relation to suspected facts of a crime in connection with two articles in “Pravo-Zashchita”.

· Issue No1 (58), March 2004, contained the Appeal of Akhmed Zakaev (Vice-President of the Government of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria) to the Russian People, printed on page 1.

· Issue No 2 (59), April-May 2004, contained on page 7 the Appeal of Aslan Maskhadov (the now deceased President of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria) to the European Parliament, on the question of the deportation of the whole of the Chechen people from Chechnya on 23 February 1944.

13. I was informed by Mr Dmitrievskii that the criminal case was commenced by the Prosecutor’s office of Nizhny Novgorod Region, and as the incriminated article is under the jurisdiction of the Department for the Protection of the Constitutional System of the Federal Security Service (FSB, formerly KGB), under Article 280 of the Criminal Code, “Public calls to carry out extremist activity”, the investigation was carried by the FSB. The maximum penalty for this offence when carried out in the mass media is up to five years imprisonment, and prohibition from participation in the media for up to three years.

14. The offices of the SRCF were raided, and documents were taken away. Mr Dmitrievsky told me that all the legal founding documents of the newspaper were taken together with all contracts of employment.

15. SRCF then started an information campaign about the prosecution, and Mr Dmitrievsky believes that the FSB simply became fed up. They are used to working secretly. He also thinks there may be some conflict between the FSB and Prokuratura.

16. The case was then passed to the Prosecutor’s Office (Prokuratura), and is now the responsibility of Mr Maksim Ivanovich Dudnik, a Senior Investigator of the Department for Investigating Especially Serious Cases. An expert report was commissioned into the content of the two Appeals, and the conclusion was there was no evidence of commission of the crime specified in Article 280. This expert report was initiated by the FSB and after having received the experts’ conclusions, they returned the case to the Prosecutor’s Office, as this article of the Criminal Code is under their jurisdiction.

17. The case was amended so as to remove reference to Article 280, and instead to refer to Article 282 of the Criminal Code, “Exciting hatred or enmity, as well as diminishing human dignity”. This step, together with extensions to the time limit for conducting an investigation, is authorised by a senior prosecutor.

18. To date, no person, physical or legal, has been charged with any criminal offence. Mr Dmitrievskii has been invited to attend for questioning as a “witness” rather than as a “suspect” or an “accused”, as defined by the Criminal Procedural Code.

19. Mr Dudnik agreed to meet me on 17 June 2005, and received me courteously, on my own, in his office in the new, modern building of the Prokuratura. He told me that he graduated from the Saratov Legal Academy, and has been a prosecutor for four years. He is responsible for investigating serious cases such as murder, and the most serious economic crimes. It should be pointed out that the Ministry of the Interior (Police) also has its own investigators, who investigate all crimes other than the most serious.

20. After I told him about the international concern surrounding the case, he informed me that investigations are still continuing, but now for offences under Article 129 of the Criminal Code, “Kleveta”, or “Criminal Libel”. This is generally punishable by a fine, though the aggravated offence could be punished by imprisonment for up to three years. It is not clear to me whom or what is said to have been defamed – perhaps the Russian state. A third expert report on the two articles has been commissioned, and its results are awaited in August. Consideration of the report could well take a further month.

21. Mr Dudnik underlined the fact that to date no person has been charged, there has been no search, and individuals have been questioned as witnesses only.

22. When I suggested to him that the investigation was being “strung out” in order to avoid the various civil actions, for example defamation, which might be brought if the cases are stopped, he replied that all the decisions taken so far could be challenged in the courts, but so far there has been no challenge. Mr Dmitrievsky insists that there is no such possibility.

23. I took the opportunity to explain to him the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to such cases, and advised him to read the decisions in Ozur Gundem v Turkey, and Castells v Spain. He said that he had only received limited instruction in human rights principles while at law school, and assured me that he would locate the judgments, which are available in Russian translation, and would read them.

24. On 20 June 2005, following my visit, the Prokuratura of Nizhnii Novgorod Oblast held a press conference at which Konstantin Moiseyev, an Assistant Prosecutor of Nizhniii Novgorod Oblast, confirmed that a further expert report had found no evidence of the commission of a crime under Article 282. A news item on the Demos news service confirming the press conference also referred to my Mission[2].

25. Mr Dmitrievsky told me that he is now less worried about the criminal investigation.

Federal Tax Inspectorate

26. In March 2005 the Federal Tax Inspectorate commenced an audit of the accounts of SRCF for the past three years. However, special interest by this body in SRCF started some one and a half years ago, according to Mr Dmitrievsky. In his view this is the most serious threat to SRCF.

27. Together with Mr Dmitrievsky, in his capacity of Executive Director of RCFS, I went to the office for the Federal Tax Inspectorate without prior notice. We were accompanied by a reporter and photographer from Associated Press.

28. They were not allowed further into the building than the lobby, but I was permitted to attend a meeting with Mr Dmitrievsky, as his witness, according to the Article 90 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

29. I briefly met the Manager of the office, who, on 3 June 2005, called the accountant of the RCFS, Natalia Chernelevskaya, to an interview and allegedly threatened her – see Annex 1 below. I was also present when she was interviewed by the AP reporter at the office of NOPCh. She appeared to me to give a credible account of what happened to her. I did not have the opportunity to put this account to the manager.

30. With Mr Dmitrievsky I met Mrs Larisa Igorevna Komleva, Head of Viyezdnikh Proverok No.1, Sovetnik Nalogovoi Sluzhbi RF III Ranga (she is head of the Department of Out Of Office Audit No.1, and is a Councillor of the Tax Service of the Russian Federation, 3^rd rank).

31. She informed me more than once that she is qualified as an economist, and teaches part-time as a Dotsent (Senior Lecturer) at the Faculty of Tax Inspection, of the Institute of Economics and Law or the State Construction University in Nizhnii Novgorod. She seemed particularly interested in impressing me with her qualifications.

32. Her department is one of two in Nizhnii Novgorod which carries out audit where it is not possible for the tax-payer to provide office facilities for a visiting inspector, and all necessary documents must therefore be provided for audit in the Tax Inspectorate. The audit covered the activities of RCFS over a three year period.

33. She referred me to Chapter 14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which is entitled “Tax Control”. Articles 87 to 89 stipulate for “Viyezdni (Out of Office) Proverka.” She insisted that an audit of this kind is carried out every two years, and is absolutely of a normal planned nature. However, Article 82(3) of the Code plainly states that the police and other state agencies inform each other about materials the may have on violations of tax legislation. The fears expressed by RCFS that they have been singled out for a special audit as part of an orchestrated campaign is therefore credible.

34. In my presence Mr Dmitrievsky was handed an official document entitled “Akt Nalogovoi Proverky” (Record of Tax Audit). This was dated 16 June 2005, and stated that the Audit commenced on 10 March 2005, was halted 20 April 2005, started again 14 June 2005, and was completed on 16 June 2005. Preparation of such a Record is governed by Article 100 of the Tax Code, “Oformleniye rezultatov viyezdnoi proverky” – “drawing up of the results of out of office audit.

35. The Code provides that if a grant received by an organisation is considered not to be “tselevoi finance”, ie for a particular purpose, then it is to be taxed as profit.

36. It appeared from the Record that the Tax Inspectorate had decided that all grants received from RCFS for the past three years have been treated as profit, leading to a demand for unpaid tax and fines of over 1m RR, that is, at least $35,000.

37. Mr Dmitrievsky was asked to add any comments to the Record before acknowledging receipt by signing it.

38. Under Article 100(5) of the Code RCFS has two weeks in which to propose corrections to the Record. The Inspectorate must reply within 14 days. In the absence of agreement, the tax-payer may apply to court, Mr Dmitrievsky intends that all necessary applications will be made.

39. In his view the Record contains two main mistakes. The first is the failure to recognise that the EEC is the same as the European Commission (this occurs on page 6 of the Record), and the EEC is not included in the list of the Government RF No.923 of 24 December 2002 “On the list of foreign and international organisations the grants of which are not included in the goals of tax liability in the receipts of Russian organisations which receive grants.” The EC is on the list.

40. Second, a large part of RCFS’ money was contributed by the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington. To treat this grant money as profit would contradict the agreement entered into between Russia and the USA, exempting funds contributed by US funds from Russian tax.

41. According to Mr Dmitrievsky, there is a clear contradiction between the 1995 Law on Social Associations (NGOs) and the Tax Code.

42. All the documents which had been taken away for the purposes of the Audit were returned to Mr Dmitrievsky.

Ministry of Justice, Federal Registration Service

43. The court case commenced against SRCF in April 2005 concerned failure to provide documents required by the Federal Registration Service for the purpose of their audit.

44. The FRS carries out an audit every year as a matter of course. They carried out an audit in July 2004, and everything was said to be in order.

45. Following the return of the relevant documents by the Tax Inspectorate, I attended the office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation with Mr Dmitrivesky. Again, no prior notice was given.

46. We were courteously received by Mr Aleksei Pavlovich Shubin, Counsellor of Justice Second Class, and Chief Administration for Nizhny Novgorod Oblast of the Federal Registration Service

47. I understood that the outcome of the meeting was that everything was now in order with presentation of necessary documents for the registration of SRCF and NOPCh.

· A plan of audit will be settled by agreement in relation to NOPCh

· Mr Dmitrievsky is now in a position to supply all documents for SRCF

48. It would appear that the events of 3 June 2005, described in Annex 2 below, which resulted in the decision to close NOPCh, were the result of some overreaction on both sides.

49. The matter has now been resolved.

Conclusion

50. It was apparent that the various officials I met were impressed by the fact that the representative of a prestigious organisation, armed with a formal letter of introduction, and dressed in a suit and tie, had travelled to Nizhny Novgorod to make investigations.

51. These state agencies, and, I suspect, all the others, now know that they are being watched closely from abroad as well as within Russia.

52. I am in no doubt that SRCF and NOPCh have been the subject of concerted interference and in some cases harassment by state agencies. Although each of the actions described above has been carried out in accordance with Russian law, the fact that investigations by three organs of the state have been commenced since the start of 2005 gives weight to my view.

53. It seems likely, as Mr Dmitrievsky told me, that these actions have been initiated or encouraged by the office of the President’s Representative in the Volga Federal Okrug, Mr Kirienko.

54. At the time of writing, the real threat to SRCF is the Audit by the Tax Inspectorate, and the wholly unreasonable demand for repayment and fine of over 1 m RR.

55. My recommendation is that this case is if necessary fought through all the relevant Russian instances. A close watch should be kept on the proceedings, both for violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (right to private property.)

Professor Bill Bowring

27 June 2005

ANNEX 1

IHF: Continuing Persecution of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society

Continuing Persecution of the “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society”

Its Partner Organisation “Nizhny Novgorod Human Rights Society” Closed Down

by Authorities

Vienna, 10 June 2005. The campaign of harassment and prosecution against Russian human rights NGOs dealing with Chechnya-issues continues. While the legal harassment against the Nizhny Novgorod-based Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS) is still ongoing, the Nizhny Novgorod Human Rights Society (NNHRS), with whom the RCFS jointly publishes the Pravozaschita newspaper, was ordered to halt its activities by the Ministry of Justice on 3 June 2005.

In 2005, a criminal investigation into some articles published in the Pravozaschita newspaper took and continues to take place, as well as checks by the tax authorities and moves by the Ministry of Justice to close down the organizations. This has been accompanied by a negative media coverage of the organizations’ activities in Nizhny Novgorod.

Additionally:

· In March 2005, the co-editor of Pravozaschita, Oksana Chelysheva, faced numerous threatening leaflets in her own neighborhood. The flyers contained slander, insult, and direct threats to Oksana Chelysheva in connection with her work at RCFS.

· In the night of 4 April 2005, unknown individuals robbed and also tried to set fire to a newspaper kiosk in Argun (Chechnya) belonging to RCSF correspondent Petimat Tokaeva.

· Since 22 April 2005, the “Volgatelecom” telephone company has been refusing to install telephone line in the new office of the Information Center at the RCFS that it rents together with NNHRS under far-fetched pretexts.

· On 3 June 2005, the accountant of the RCFS, Natalia Chernelevskaya, was called to the chief manager of the tax inspection of Nizhegorodsky district of Nizhny Novgorod who threatened her with imprisonment, making hints about the Khodorkovsky-case and reminding her about her little child. Then he made an attempt to persuade her to quit the job at the RCFS offering a better-paid job at their office.

Since 2000, there have been a number of cases of “disappearances” extrajudicial executions, and torture and ill-treatment of members and activists of the RCFS in the North Caucasus. The most recent was the killing of Aslan Davletukaev in January 2004.

The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights condemns the targeting of human rights organizations’ activities as well as the individuals employed by them. We believe that the legal and bureaucratic pressure to which the Nizhny Novgorod Society for Human Rights, the Russian Chechen Friendship Society, and their joint newspaper Pravozaschita are intentionally implemented by the authorities of the Russian Federation to obstruct and hamper the activities of these organizations. The employees of both organizations are in serious danger.

The legal harassment of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society

On 11 January 2005, a criminal investigation was opened against the RCFS. On 20 January 2005, a group of officers from the Federal Security Service (FSB) Burst into the organization’s office, seized documents and computers, and then “invited” the chair of the RCFS, Stas Dimitrievsky, to come to the local FSB office for questioning him. Although at that time the charges had not been formally brought against the RCFS, Dimitrievsky chose to abide the FSB request in order to avoid potential complications. Since then, board and staff members of the RCFS and the NNHRS, both in Nizhny Novgorod and Chechnya have been called in for questioning as witnesses by FSB officials, which was particularly intimidating to the correspondents in Chechnya, and some of them quit their affiliation with the RCFS.

The materials under investigation include an appeal by the late Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov to the European Parliament, published in the April-May 2004 edition of the Pravozaschita newspaper, calling for help in finding a peaceful settlement to the Chechen conflict, and an appeal in the March 2004 edition by Aslan Maskhadov's London-based envoy Akhmed Zakaev to the Russian people not to re-elect President Putin.

Later, the criminal case was reclassified. Instead of referring to article 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (public calls to extremist activities) it now refers to article 282 (incitement of ethnic, racial or religious hatred or enmity). Due to that the case was transferred from the FSB to the prosecutor’s office as investigations under this article are under their jurisdiction. According to the investigator, a linguistic expert of the Ministry of Justice came to the conclusion that the texts in the newspaper contain statements that can be charged under article 282. However, he refused to acquaint Dimitrievsky with this conclusion, because “Dimitrievsky has not been charged yet” and thus according to the Code of Criminal Procedure has no right to get access to the statements of another “witness” in the case.

Additionally, the tax authorities conducted off-scheduled controls of the organization throughout 2005.

Parallel to that, on 8 April 2005, a civil court suit to close down the organization was initiated by the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice. The first hearing took place on 25 April 2005. The Suit is based on an audit of the RCFS, where documents were demanded that are not enlisted in the Law on Public Associations, as well as other documents that the Tax Police had taken with them on their visit. The acting head of the department in Nizhny Novgorod, E.V. Istomina, considered this to be a gross violation of the law, and brought a suit to close down the organization referring to article 63 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and article 25 of the Law on the State Registration of Juridical Persons and Individual Entrepeneurs.

The recent refusal of the telephone company to install a cable line for a new office of RCFS because of “unfavorable climate conditions” seriously impedes the activities of the RCFS.

The bank accounts of the RCFS were temporarily frozen by the authorities, and registered letters to the attention of official bodies were lost in the post office.

Closure of the “Nizhny Novgorod Society for Human Rights”

On 3 June 2005, the respected partner-organisation of the RCFS, the Nizhniy Novgorod Human Rights Society (NNHRS) learnt of an official decision to terminate its work. The decision of the Ministry of Justice to suspend the work of the NNHRS is allegedly based on the fact that it did not comply with the requirements to submit documentation of its work within the established deadline for inspection. However, the NNSHR leadership persist that they have observed all their legal obligations in this respect. A few weeks prior to the decision, on 19 April 2005, a court had found that the organization had not violated the administrative code in its correspondence with the registration chamber of the Ministry of Justice.

International Standards. Recommendations

With the persecution of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and the Nizhny Novgorod Human Rights Society the Russian government is in breach of its obligations under Article 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1) , which holds that:

The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.

Russian authorities have not only failed to “take all necessary measures to ensure the protection” of human rights defenders, but state officials themselves are the perpetrators.

The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights recommends to the government of the Russian Federation:

· Stop persecution of human rights defenders involved with the crisis in Chechnya

· Investigate abuses against defenders and prosecute the perpetrators, as demanded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Resolution 1323 (2003)

· Guarantee the security of witnesses and applicants to the European Court of Human Rights

· Grant unrestricted access to Chechnya to independent media and human rights monitors

· Start a meaningful cooperation with the Council of Europe, UN treaty bodies and special mechanisms, including the immediate issuing of an invitation to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders, Hina Jilani

· Renew the mandate of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Assistance Group to Chechnya, with an added emphasis on the monitoring human rights and protection of defenders.

Prague Watchdog

Reporting on the conflict in the North Caucasus

Bill Bowring's report on the situation around ORChD

TERMS OF REFERENCE