|
English Language Page Next Monday the UN committee on human rights was to consider the fifth periodical report of the Russian Federation on the Pact of civil and political rights. However, it isn’t going to be considered . . . The International Pact on civil and political rights was ratified by the Soviet Union back in 1973, and was inherited by the Russian Federation as the legal successor to the USSR. Among Russia’s international obligations within the sphere of human rights, the pact acts as the fundamental document. Within it are enclosed the fundamental rights and freedoms – such as freedom from torture and cruel treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the right to a privite life, etc. In order to monitor to the Pact-member States’ fulfillment of their obligations, the UN Committee on Human Rights exists. Once every five years the the committee collects reports from the governments on the state of observance of the Pact for the given period covered. Reports are then considered at special sessions, based upon which the Committee makes recommendations. The States make every effort in the drafting of their reports, and take the committee’s recommendations seriously. Why? Criticism from the international community and the public pointing out of one’s nonobservance of their gentlemanlike obligations is not becoming to any government. The obligations were undertaken voluntarily, and the failure to observe them is shameful. No country wants to lose face in the eyes of their partners of the international community. And it is especially shameful when in front of everyone they point their finger at you, a great power, and reproachfully shake their head. How do you not lose face? You can observe human rights. You can convincingly lie that you are observing them. The latter of which Russia, just as many other countries, has become adept at. Doing this usually disturbs human rights workers, who provide the Committee’s experts with alternative reports. In these reports the actual state of affairs is revised, exposing the problems ommitted in the state reports, and pointing out the inaccuracy and erroneousness of the official information. The 15-16 of July of this year, the committee was to have considered the Fifth Periodical Report of the Russian Federation, which was delayed for nearly two periods. This consideration was impatiently awaited by Russian human rights workers. They had, as usual, prepared the multi-volumed alternative report, commenting on Russia’s observance, or more accurately nonobservance, of the fundamental articles of the Pact. The alternative report was compiled by a coalition of nongovernmental organizations, which included the human rights center “Memorial”, the Moscow-Helsinki Group, Center for Assistance to International Protection, Nizhnii Novgorod Committee against Torture, Information Center SOVA, Interregional Group “Human Rights Network”, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Independent Council of Legal Expertise, the Glasnost Defense Foundation, and the Movement for Human Rights. The Moscow-Helsinki Group coordinated the operation, and prepared the final version of the report. In the beginning of June this report was sent to the Committee’s experts, who, according to our information, carefully studied it and evaluated it quite highly, from the point of filling in the gaps in the official report presented by the RF government. On July 11th several representatives from Human Rights Organizations that compiled reports should have arrived in Geneva in order to meet with experts, give a briefing for the Committee, and so on. However, no one went anywhere, because the consideration of the Russian report was not going to take place. It was changed, naturally, not by the Committee, but by the Russian Government itself (just three business days before the hearing on Russia was to take place in oral form), which unexpectedly informed the Committee Secretariat that they had not managed to prepare. And, accordingly, they asked for and extension until Autumn: until the Committee’s next October-session. Not in the condition to present one’s report . . . didn’t do their homework . . . afraid they’ll get a “D” . . . Russian human rights workers have grown accustomed to a lot, and they aren’t of the highest opinion of their government, but such an absence of professionalism and open sloppiness astonished even them. Yet from the point of view of diplomatic rule and the norms of gentlemenllike conduct, the situation simply cannot be remedied. Of course it has happened that States (as a rule those in which human rights are by no means without mishap – Uzbekhistan for example) have asked the Committee to put off the consideration of their reports. However, their requests were submitted a few months before the hearing – not three business days. These three days, apparently, are our Russian specialty of the house. We have, as is well known, our own way, and the norms of international society do not apply to us. However, the astonishment of the Russian human rights workers is nothing in comparison with the shock the UN Committee on Human Rights experienced. Its purpose is to conduct constructive dialog with the partner-governments of the Pact. Yet, what constructive dialog can we talk about, when three days before going out into the conference room the conference room closes, because one particular Government is unaquainted with the rules of conduct in respectable society! As announced by the Secretary of the Committee, his representative immediately sent the Russian Mission in Geneva a letter, in which he asked that the hearing not be postponed. The Russian government ignored the requeste. It must be said that the “Russian way” wasn’t liked in Geneva, in so much as the committee is now meeting to reconsider their procedures, so that in the future they have the possiblity to deny a State an extension on their hearing if their request is not made in a timely fashion. Everyone can decide for themselves what threw Russia into diplomatic scandal – Byzantinian cunning, interdepartmental chaos, or the desire to once again kick the legs out from under the international community. One thing is abudantly clear, though: In trying to run from the deserved criticism from the committee, our country has put itself in a position “below any criticism”. Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|