|
English Language Page In their attempts to find work outside of Chechnya, the majority of Russian citizens of Chechen origin encounter almost insurmountable obstacles. This first among these obstacles during the job hunt is, as a rule, the absence of residence registration. In Moscow, heavy fines are levied against directors of organizations and businesses of any type of ownership who hire workers lacking residence permits. For example, the “Civic Assistance” Committee was approached with a request for help by Knari Bagiyeva, a single Armenian elderly woman from the city of Grozny and a teacher by training with tremendous work experience. She applied for a teaching position at boarding school ¹19 but, despite the shortage of teachers, she was turned down because of the lack of a residence permit. The “Civic Assistance” Committee contacted the school principal, who confirmed that he was ready to hire K. Bagiyeva provided she had a residence permit. However, she cannot obtain a residence registration due to the fact that she is living with the family of her former pupil in a rented apparent and the landlord is reluctant to register Chechen tenants because of expected trouble with the authorities. Because of the widespread anti-Caucasian sentiment in society, the majority of employers deny jobs to persons of Chechen origin, even if the latter do have a residence permit. In some instances, the denial of employment to forced migrants is “justified” by the absence of various papers required for a particular job or the nature of the job itself requiring permanent residence registration. For example, a Chechen woman, Khadshit Khatuyeva, managed to get registered and obtain the status of a forced migrant in the city of Izhevsk. Nevertheless, she is still being denied employment because she does not have an employment history card. As a result, her family has to survive on the pension of her invalid uncle (15). The Shabazov family went to Moscow because the situation inside Chechnya worsened. The family members obtained temporary registration with their relatives, and two of them found jobs. All of the Shabazovs have a first-rate education, their mother tongue is Russian. Bakha Shabazov, a teacher with 30-years work experience, got a job in school ¹142, the administration of which was looking for qualified educators. However, B. Shabazov was later dismissed under the provisions of Order ¹567 “On the Introduction of Additional Security Measures in Schools,” issued by the Moscow City Committee on Education on September 21, 1999, and signed by its head, L. Kezina. The school principal expressed his sympathy to B. Shabazov but said that he was under “pressure from above.” B. Shabazov’s daughter, Elina, who worked for a private company, was also fired. Her dismissal was justified by the reluctance of her “colleagues to work alongside a Chechen woman.” (16) On March 22, 2001, lawyers in the Moscow reception office of the “Migration and Law” Network were approached by Aslanbek Beiters about the issue of his unlawful dismissal. He was born in 1966, graduated from an aviation school and until 1994 lived in the city of Grozny. Then, he moved to the city of Saratov and from 1997 to 1999 worked as a flight attendant for the now defunct Askhab Air Company. While in Moscow, he managed to find a job as a general laborer at Vnukovo airport. On March 9, he attempted to get his younger brother, Ramazan, a similar position. Having finished the paperwork in the personnel department, the two brothers went to get an airport security pass for the younger brother. When security officials found out that the Beiters brothers were Chechens, they immediately told them that they could not work at the airport. In the personnel department, they were advised to take back their employment history cards and were told that they were fired. It appeared that because of an unusual family name, the administration had not realized that Aslanbek Beiters was a Chechen — when they found out they corrected their earlier “mistake.” However, on the next day, the personnel department came out with the following justification for Beiters’ dismissal: the airport is a strategic object and only people possessing permanent residence registration are eligible to work there. It was much harder to argue against this explanation then the one based on ethnic origin because Article 16 of the Labor Code allows the introduction of employment limitations “specific to a particular type of work.” In other cases, employers openly give ethnic origin as the grounds for denying employment to migrants from the Chechen Republic. For example, in the city of Bryansk a lawyer for the “Migration and Law” Network, Nikolai Polyakov, who was trying to find employment for forced migrants from Chechnya, was turned down by all the employers in the city. They openly told him that they did not want to hire Chechens. Administration officials stated to him that they could not trust Chechens and added that “he’d be better off expending his energy protecting Russians who had been persecuted in Chechnya, rather than these….” In the city of Tver, forced migrants from the Chechen Republic are also denied employment on the ground of their ethnicity (17). In the Chuvash Republic, a lawyer of the “Migration and Law” Network, Pyotr Aivenov, turned to the leadership of the republic for assistance in finding employment for forced migrants from Chechnya, but was given the reply that the only assistance that could be provided to them was getting them one-way tickets back to Chechnya. In some cases, law enforcement officers exerted direct pressure on employers, who hired Chechens. For example, in the city of Cheboksary the head of an enterprise employing Chechens was summoned to the Regional Department Against Organized Crime and advised to “get rid” of his Chechen employees (18). Some of the employers hiring Chechens make use of their difficult situation and impose discriminatory employment conditions on them: pay them a lesser salary, make them work without holidays, etc. Right to Medical Assistance With the introduction of medical insurance, those who do not have insurance or have insurance provided by a company registered in another city find it more difficult to get access to free medial assistance even within the limits provided in the law. The medical insurance fund and the insurance companies do not cover non-local residents. Getting a medical insurance policy often involves insurmountable obstacles for refugees, including those from the Chechen Republic, because obtaining such a policy under citizen’s obligatory medical insurance requires local residence registration, while other types of medical insurance are too expensive. Under Moscow regulations, one can qualify for such an insurance policy provided one has been a registered resident in Moscow for at least six months. The Moscow City Court ruled that the residential qualification clause in the Moscow regulations on granting obligatory medical insurance is unlawful but the Moscow City Medical Insurance Fund, which is charged with coordinating the activities of medical insurance funds in the capital, is not complying with the court’s decision. (19) Under the rules regulating the provision of obligatory medical insurance in the Volgograd region (enacted through executive order of the head of the administration ¹542 of June 26, 2001) non-residents are not even entitled to buy a medical insurance policy. For example, the son of Marina Gilkhayeva, Yusup, was no longer able to talk as a result of severe nervous stress in the first Chechen war. Fortunately, after eight months of treatment in a psychiatric clinic he started to talk again. However, completion of the medical therapy requires treatment in a dental clinic. The latter is impossible without an insurance policy, which is unobtainable without a residence registration. Without residential registration young Yusup is not eligible either for medical treatment or schooling. There are five children in Marina Gilkhayeva’s family: four of her own and an orphan niece, whose father disappeared and whose mother was killed. Marina’s husband is handicapped (20). There are some known instances of Chechens in Russia not being able to get even minimal medical assistance because of discrimination against them by medical workers. For example, Anzhela Mnitsayeva, a 21-year old unregistered refugee from Grozny was already in labor, but was rejected from several Moscow maternity wards, finally being admitted only when she actually went into labor. The process was accompanied by insults, like “she came here to give birth to a terrorist.” The following day, they wanted to discharge her from the facility but were reluctant to give her the child in the absence of any documents. Also, in this particular case, as in a number of similar cases when medical insurance coverage was absent, the district polyclinics refused to provide post-natal care, recommending instead that the woman summon paid medical assistance. Right to Education Under Article 43 of the RF Constitution, “everyone has a right to education” and “accessible and free-off-charge pre-school, general secondary and intermediate vocational education in state-run or municipal educational facilities is guaranteed.” The Constitution also states that “general secondary education is obligatory.” This should mean that state-run and municipal educational facilities have to take every child, even if he or she does not have residence registration or is not a citizen of Russia, and give him or her the opportunity to obtain a secondary education. Similar rules are contained in the Law “On Education” and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by Russia. However, in Moscow, children whose parents do not have residence registration, are not admitted to secondary schools and pre-school facilities. As early as during the first Chechen war, the Moscow Committee on Education decided to take children from Chechnya only for the period not to exceed the term of their registration, (at that time, it would not exceed 45 days), not to ask them questions during the classes, not to grade them and not to provide them with any certificate upon completion of the school. Thus, the children were only allowed to attend classes. Children from families with many children were not given the benefits they were entitled to, like material assistance for buying school uniforms, free meals and commuting passes (21). The prohibition on admittance of children to schools without registration has been contested in court several times, but the Moscow Committee on Education has repeatedly reenacted it under new names. In March of 1999, the Moscow government even included this prohibition into its Resolution ¹241-28 on the adoption of new registration requirements (the fifth section of the resolution). On September 21, 1999, the head of the Moscow Committee on Education, L. Kezina issued Order ¹567 “On the Introduction of Additional Security Measures in Schools.” Under Paragraph 1.1 of the said document, secondary schools and boarding schools were advised “to admit non-local children only if they had registration documents.” Despite the criticism voiced by human rights activists, the Moscow authorities firmly defended their right to introduce such limitations. In reply to the parliamentary request of the State Duma Deputy, V. Borshchev, the Moscow prosecutor, S. Gerasimov, pointed out: The above requirement of the Order does not contradict federal legislation. The RF Law “On the Right of the Citizens of the Russian Federation to Freedom of Movement, Freedom to Choose the Place of Residence within the Boundaries of the Russian Federation” introduced a registration control procedure for the citizens of the Russian Federation at their place of stay or residence within the boundaries of the Russian Federation. Article 3 of the Law obliges every citizen of the Russian Federation to register at his place of residence or place of stay within the Russian Federation. Therefore, the registration procedure does not deny the citizens of the Russian Federation the opportunity to receive education regardless of their actual place of residence, which is guaranteed by Article 5 of the RF Law “On Education.” Based on the above, we do not see any grounds for filing a protest against the aforementioned Order of the Chair of the Moscow Committee on Education. Order ¹567 has led to numerous violations of citizens’ right to education. In December of 2000, a court ruled that Article 5 of the rules of registration was inconsistent with current legislation. In September of 2001, the non-governmental organizations fighting for the implementation of the court’s ruling demanded that the Moscow Committee on Education notify school principals about the court decision. The Moscow Committee on Education sent Directive ¹2-13-15/20 of October 12, 2001, to schools saying that, “admission to educational institutions will occur on the basis of children being officially noted in the passports of their parents and a written application with reference to current address, regardless of the presence or absence of actual residence registration documents.” However, the same directive required notification to “law enforcement authorities that the parents of underage citizens did not have residence registration.” In spite of the court’s ruling and the letter sent by the Moscow Committee on Education, administrators of state-run educational institutions continue to insist that children can be admitted to school only after their parents present a certificate of residence registration. There have been numerous cases testifying to this. Moreover, in one particular case, a late extension of existing residence registration resulted in the expulsion of children from a boarding school. In another case, the State Duma Deputy Vyacheslav Igrunov, who was lobbying for the admission of a girl into a specialized boarding school for deaf children, was told in the capacity of a recommendation, by the Deputy Chairman of the Moscow Committee on Education, to put the girl into the custody of a Moscow resident. Although the situation in the Moscow educational system is one of the most difficult for Chechen refugees, other regions are not significantly better. On September 1, 2001, Chechen children from various grades who had attended the schools of the city of Nalchik, the capital of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, were not allowed to go to their classes. In those cases when a child of Chechen origin is admitted to a school after all, he/she is subjected to insults and discrimination both from pupils, and from teachers and the administration of the school. For example, in the Lipetsk district of the Lipetsk region, the children of the Mustyat family, who had attended the local secondary school, had to leave it because of constant public humiliation by teachers and the principal of the school (22). A similar situation can be observed in pre-school facilities as well. Higher education facilities are allowed to give their students temporary registration. In a number of cases Chechens managed to get enrolled in fully paid programs in colleges and get registered after paying for a dormitory bed. However, the applications of two students who were trying to transfer from Grozny colleges to the Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship were turned down. They were told that the University had already admitted one Chechen and it could not admit any more (23). Pensions Russian Federation pension legislation does not make the right to a state pension subject to the place of residence registration or the citizenship of persons living on the territory of the country. However, in reality, social security authorities responsible for pensions assign pensions only to those who have been registered in the area of their jurisdiction. Otherwise, pensions are granted only to refugees and forced migrants, provided they have the appropriate papers. An unregistered person, as a rule, has no chance of getting a pension. Consequently, many refugees and forced migrants, especially those from the Chechen Republic, who can not get residence registration, can be denied their pensions for years. In other instances, even those people who have the necessary forced migrant status and who have residence registration, can loose their entitlement to a state pension when their registration expires, remaining without a pension until they manage to reregister. Residents of Chechnya, who left its territory after the resumption of hostilities in 1999, are entitled to a pension outside their republic only if they have a residence registration and a pension file. The pension files of most of the Chechen refugees were destroyed during the armed conflict or the refugees did not have an opportunity to fetch them before their departure. Furthermore, many Chechens are not registered at their place of residence. Consequently, the majority of Chechen pensioners and invalids living outside of Chechnya do not receive state pensions. On March 15, 2000, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation sent its recommendations, with regard to the payment of minimum pensions to pensioners from Chechnya without pension files, to the Ministry of Labor and Social Development. However, these recommendations did not result in any substantial improvement in the provision of pensions to Chechen refugees. Refugees from Chechnya are deprived of the opportunity to receive other social benefits, including children’s benefits, on the same grounds. For example, on May 15, 2000, the office of the “Civic Assistance” Committee was visited by Adam Makayev. In 1996, he lost a leg as a result of a land mine explosion. His 10-year old son suffered a neck injury from the mine fragment. Their home in Chechnya was destroyed. Adam Makayev, his wife and three children settled in the Penza region in an abandoned house, where they are not entitled to a residence permit. Because they do not have residence registration they cannot get new passports. The family does not receive children’s benefits, although they do get a minimum pension. Adam Makayev's family lives in dire poverty. Right to Start a Family The statutes regulating the issue of civic records do not require that those getting married must have residence registration. However, the registrar’s offices do not accept applications to register marriages without a certificate of residence registration provided by law enforcement authorities. In reply to a parliamentary request made by the State Duma Deputy Vyacheslav Igrunov, the head of the Registrar General of Moscow, L. Mozharova, on October 29, 1999 refused to question the legality of such requirements. Ignoring the provisions of civic records legislation, she relied upon Executive Order ¹241-28 passed by the Moscow government on March 30, 1999, enacting new rules for residence registration and registration of stay in the metropolitan area, as well as to the Moscow Mayor’s Order ¹1007 of September 13, 1999. However, all citizens of the country and not just Chechens without residence registration encounter similar problems while trying to get married in the majority of Russia’s regions. In any case, some form of residence registration is required, if only hotel registration. Hotels however, do their best not to rent rooms to Chechens. Right to Leave the Country Since the autumn of 1999, the government has refused to issue foreign passports and internal passports to citizens arriving from Chechnya. Employees of Visa and Registration Offices (OVIR) informed the representatives of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center and the “Civic Assistance” Committee, off the record, about the existence of an order “not to issue passports to Chechens.” Namely, OVIR employees referred to a certain unpublished Directive ¹15/4-3612, passed by the Visa and Registration Department of the Chief Police Directorate of Moscow on September 21, 1999. The text of the directive was obtained only on November 25, following several requests by Deputy Vyacheslav Igrunov. This said directive prohibited, until further notice, the issue of foreign passports to citizens of the Russian Federation at their place of stay if they were registered residents of the Chechen Republic. The same prohibition applied to the issue of internal passports to Russian citizens, (including those born before 1974) who had arrived from the Chechen Republic. This directive was substantiated by references to the “events in the Dagestan Republic, staged by groups of bandits that had made an incursion into the territory of the republic, as well as to the terrorist acts in Buynaksk, Volgodonsk and Moscow.” The directive specifically noted that “there are solid grounds to believe that the extremists, who are trying to escape punishment, would attempt to obtain foreign passports and go abroad or obtain internal passports under assumed names.” This directive was most likely aimed at preventing the massive emigration of Chechens to the West. For example, on October 22, 1999, Mukhadi Israilov, a faculty-member at the Moscow State University, reported that his mother, a resident of Grozny, was denied a foreign passport under Directive ¹15/4-3612 of September 21, 1999 passed by the Visa and Registration Department of the Chief Police Directorate of Moscow. At the local OVIR office, M. Israilov was told that this directive was issued following an order from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and that it prohibited the issue of foreign passports to residents of Chechnya. Following a parliamentary inquiry by State Duma Deputy V. Borshchev on March 3, 2000, senior assistant to the Prosecutor General, T. Pakhomenko replied that Directive ¹15/4-3612 was repealed in January by the head of Legal Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, A. Vorotnikov. However, despite the repeal of that order, Russian citizens of Chechen origin still encounter serious problems when attempting to obtain foreign passports. Unfortunately, the opportunities for citizens of Chechen origin to travel abroad are limited not only because of the discriminatory policies of the Russian authorities, but also due to the position taken by the embassies of a number of western countries. Since the beginning of the second Chechen war almost all western consular offices in Russia stopped issuing entry visas to migrants from Chechnya. The personal experience of employees of the “Civic Assistance” Committee shows that the embassies of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the member countries of the Schengen agreement do not issue tourist visas to individuals born in Chechnya, even when traveling as part of tourist group. Property Rights Many residents of Chechnya have lost their homes and property as a result of the first and second Chechen wars. In May of 1995, the Russian authorities passed the first resolution on providing compensation for lost homes and property, that was later followed by a few more orders. Compensation under these enactments however, was paid to only a small number of those who had suffered losses. At this point, the only real legal device still in force is Resolution ¹510 of the Cabinet of the Russian Federation, dated April 30, 1997. Payments under this resolution are still being made on a regular basis. Moreover, the RF Cabinet’s attempt to introduce time limits and terminate the acceptance of applications was contested in the Supreme Court by the “Civic Assistance” Committee and was recognized as unlawful under current RF legislation. “Civic Assistance” was represented in court by its head, Svetlana Gannushkina, and a consultant for the “Migration and Law” Network of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center, Margarita Petrosyan, who prepared the legal briefs for the complaint (24). Nevertheless, not all of the employees of the Migration Service are aware that the time limits have been repealed. This point is aptly illustrated by the following example. Natalia Visingireyeva, born in the Mishkinsky district of the Kurgan region, married a resident of Chechnya in the 1980s and then moved to the city of Grozny. After returning home, it took her quite a long time to collect the necessary documents to apply for compensation. When she finally filed an application for compensation for her lost property and destroyed home, provided by Resolution ¹510 of the Russian Cabinet, her application was rejected on the ground that the time limit for filing had expired (25). No regulatory statutes have been passed so far regarding compensation for damage sustained by residents of Chechnya throughout the military campaign that started in autumn of 1999 and is still ongoing. All statements made by officials about a speedy adoption of such a statute have proven to be false. Another issue that has been raised related to property rights is the issue of the RF Savings Bank’s (Sberbank) liability for private deposits made in the bank’s local branches in Chechnya. Since Sberbank is a wholly government-owned company, liquidation of some of its branches does not cancel its liability for these branches’ deposits. However, the Russian government has not processed the bank records of residents of Chechnya since 1995. Numerous statements have been made to the effect that if Chechnya’s banking system is not restored in the immediate future the liability for bank deposits would be taken over by the RF Central Bank. But this has not occurred as of the present. Moreover, when refugees from Chechnya attempt to withdraw their deposits from the bank they must produce new residence or place of stay registration papers, yet again (26). Thus, it can be concluded that no practical solutions have been found so far to tackle the issue of the restoration of property rights of Russian citizens that have migrated from Chechnya. A number of attempts have been made to recover compensatory and punitive damages judicially under Article 53 of the RF Constitution and the Civil Procedure Code. As a rule, such legal actions have proven to be useless: the courts either refuse to entertain an action on the claim, or to hear the case on the merits, support the position of the defendant and deny compensation. Violations of property rights are committed not only in Chechnya but all over the country. Businessmen of Chechen origin are often subjected to pressure both by the law enforcement and regional authorities. In the majority of cases, the activities of the authorities do not go beyond simple extortion, but there are exceptions to this rule. One such example is the case of Umar Temirsultanov. He has lived in Moscow for ten years and has a permanent residence registration. He came to the capital after completion of compulsory military service and graduated from a technical college specializing in meat and diary products. He worked for a while at his profession and then entered the Institute of Meat and Diary Products (currently, University of Applied Biotechnology). After graduating from the university he went into the wholesale meat trade. His elderly father, a veteran of the WWII, lives in Chechnya. Umar supports him financially but rarely goes to Chechnya in person. U. Temirsultanov’s company, Mirida, is a respectable enterprise supplying meat products to the State Duma and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After the 1998 crisis, the state-run cold storage facilities the company used became unreliable. Umar Temirsultanov took out a loan, borrowed some money from his partners and purchased some French-made refrigeration units. They were installed on premises rented by “Mirida” from the Moscow Electromechanical Factory. On September 16, 1999, in the aftermath of the bombings in Moscow, U. Temirsultanov’s office was visited by a Federal Security Service agent. U. Temirsultanov received the agent and gave him a detailed account of his activities. (Similar visits were paid at that time to the majority of Chechens registered in Moscow.) The FSS agent thanked U. Temirsultanov and left, but the next day the manager of the Moscow Electromechanical Factory, A. Ignatenko, received a letter from the local police station. The head of the police station, G. Klimchak, demanded that “immediate steps be taken to cancel the lease with the Mirida company and remove its refrigeration equipment from the territory of the factory.” The only reason given to justify the demand was that “the head of the company is one, Umar Temirsultanov, a resident of the Chechen Republic.” The manager of the factory was scared and immediately gave in to the demand, canceling the lease agreement with “Mirida.” But it was not feasible for the company to dismantle and remove its complex refrigerating equipment immediately. Umar Temirsultanov attempted to bring this matter up with the head of police station and explain to him the absurdity of the situation. However, Major Klimchak refused to meet U. Temirsultanov, but told him through his subordinates that he should “get out while the getting's good.” It was pointed out to U. Temirsultanov, “We do not have anything against you personally, but you have three days to get lost.” Trying to salvage the situation, Umar Temirsultanov urgently registered a new firm and installed his Russian partner as director of the new company. But the new company did not have enough time to resume the lease agreement with the Moscow Electromechanical Factory. The manager of the factory was summoned to the police station, where Major Klimchar brainwashed him for an hour and a half. Then, the major demanded that the manager immediately cease cooperating with U. Temirsultanov. The police chief accused the factory manager of treachery (the manager is a former lieutenant-colonel) and said that the manager should be ashamed of himself for dealing with a Chechen after the tragic events in Moscow. “We will get him sooner or later, he is not a needle in a haystack, so you’d better keep away from him,” he advised the manager. The factory manager was terrified and, after calling Umar Temirsultanov, resigned. In the meantime, the business operations of Mirida were paralyzed because its trading partners canceled their contracts. U. Temirsultanov was no longer capable of paying the salaries to his employees and finally had to lay them off. The equipment was sold at rock bottom prices and U. Temisrultanov had to pay off huge debts. U. Temirsultanov, who is the only breadwinner for his family and his elderly father, tried to open a new business, attempting to lease a small shop. However, all his attempts to reverse his fortunes failed because as a Chechen he was not allowed to sign a lease. U. Temirsultanov’s daughter, attending kindergarten, has to lie about her ethnic background. The teachers often scare the children by telling them that the “Chechens could come and kill all of you.” (27) Another such example is a case from the Kurgan region. The following information was made public during the January meeting of the regional department of the Federal Tax Police: “The anti-terrorist operations revealed that over 100 individuals of Chechen origin are registered as entrepreneurs in the Kurgan region. A series of joint measures have been taken by the agents of the regional FSB department and Police Directorate to check on their bank accounts and business activities.” (28) (15) On the Status of the Residents of Chechnya, Who Have Been Forced to Abandon its Territory. The Report is based on materials provided by the lawyers of the “Migration and Law” Network. (Moscow: 2002). (16) Discrimination Based on the Place of Residence and Ethnicity in Moscow and Moscow Region for the Period of August 1999 — December 2000. Joint Report of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center and the “Civic Assistance” Committee (Moscow: 2001). (17) On the Status of the Residents of Chechnya, Who Have Been Forced to Abandon its Territory. The Report is based on materials provided by the lawyers of the “Migration and Law” Network (Moscow: 2002). (18) Ibid. (19) Ibid. (20) “Discrimination of the Ground of the Place of Residence and Ethnicity in Moscow and Moscow Region for the Period of August 1999 — December 2000. Joint Report of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center and the “Civic Assistance” Committee (Moscow: 2001). (21) On the Status of the Residents of Chechnya, Who Have Been Forced to Abandon its Territory. The Report is based on materials provided by the lawyers of the “Migration and Law” Network (Moscow: 2002). (22) Ibid. (23) It should be noted that this statement is not true. Testimony to the contrary is contained in the story about the beating of Caucasian students from the same university, given above. (24) On the Status of the Residents of Chechnya, Who Have Been Forced to Abandon its Territory. The Report is based on materials provided by the lawyers of the “Migration and Law” Network (Moscow: 2002). (25) Ibid. (26) Ibid. (27) Discrimination of the Grounds of Place of Residence and Ethnicity in Moscow and the Moscow Region for the Çeriod of August 1999 — December 2000 Joint Report of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center and the “Civic Assistance” Committee (Moscow: 2001). (28) Human Rights in Russian Regions — 2001 (Moscow: Moscow Helsinki Group, 2002). |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|