Human Rights Committee Considers Report of the Russian Federation in the Absence of a Delegation, Experts Raise Issues on the Persecution of Journalists and the Arrests of Protesters
The Human Rights Committee this afternoon considered the eighth periodic report of the Russian Federation on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the absence of a delegation. Committee Experts raised issues concerning the persecution of journalists and the arrests of protesters.
Photini Pazartzis, Committee Chairperson, in opening remarks, said that the Russian Federation had not sent a delegation for the review, so the Committee would consider its report in the absence of a delegation. The Committee deeply regretted this situation, which came after two postponements of the dialogue and did not allow it to engage in a meaningful exchange on the report of the State party.
Before commencing the consideration of the report, Ms. Pazartzis reiterated the Committee’s statement on the Russian Federation, adopted on 3 March 2022, in which the Committee expressed extreme concern at the ongoing military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, conducted in breach of the fundamental principles of the United Nations and the Covenant, including the prohibition of the threat or use of force. The Committee urged the State party to take all measures necessary to comply with its obligations, in particular with the right to life.
A Committee Expert said that there had been thousands of cases of harassment and persecution of journalists, and dozens of murders and attempted murders. Journalists had also been abducted and tortured. There was no information that these cases had been effectively investigated. Hundreds of Russian journalists had been detained for reporting on the war in Ukraine or protests about the war. A sadly growing number of journalists, lawyers and Russian dissidents had been targeted, murdered, or detained by Russian forces. These were serious violations of the Covenant right to freedom of speech.
Another Committee Expert said that the law on peaceful assembly and demonstrations was very worrying. In 2015, legislation was reviewed to make participation in protests punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Under this law, the number of political prisoners was ever rising in Russia. There had been mass arrests occurring in response to peaceful demonstrations in the reporting period. Protests against the conscription introduced this year resulted in thousands of arrests. It was necessary for the Russian authorities to review these policies.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Pazartzis said that the Committee had raised a number of concerns as regards excessive and disproportionate restrictions of rights, including of freedom of expression and assembly of journalists, political dissidents, lawyers and human rights defenders, and closure of media outlets and websites. Committee Experts had raised concerns about reports of extrajudicial and prolonged arrests, ill treatment in detention that was not investigated, and a lack of independence of the judiciary. She called on the Russian Federation to review its legislation and practices with a view to implementing the rights protected under the Covenant.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and thirty-sixth session is being held from 10 October to 4 November. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 27 October, to hear the progress reports of the Special Rapporteurs on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations and on Views.
Report
The Committee has before it the eighth periodic report of the Russian Federation (CCPR/C/RUS/8).
Opening Statement
PHOTINI PAZARTZIS, Committee Chairperson , said that the Russian Federation had not sent a delegation for the review, so the Committee would consider the State party’s report in the absence of a delegation. The Committee deeply regretted this situation, which came after two postponements of the dialogue and did not allow it to engage in a meaningful exchange on the report of the State party. State parties that ratified the Covenant were expected to be present for the Committee’s examination of their periodic reports. The Committee regretted the absence of the State party, but reaffirmed that it remained open to cooperation and engagement in the future.
Before commencing the consideration of the report, Ms. Pazartzis reiterated the Committee’s statement on the Russian Federation, adopted on 3 March 2022, in which the Committee expressed extreme concern at the ongoing military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, conducted in breach of the fundamental principles of the United Nations and the Covenant, including the prohibition of the threat or use of force. The Committee reminded the State party that it was bound by the Covenant to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant. The Committee urged the State party to take all measures necessary to comply with its obligations, in particular with the right to life.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said that improvements had occurred in the State party’s legal and institutional framework since the Committee issued its last concluding observations. However, there were still issues that continued to raise concerns.
The General Assembly had in March 2022 qualified the on-going war in Ukraine as an act of aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter. The Committee had previously expressed concerns about armed conflicts in the Donbas region of Ukraine and violations of Covenant rights of residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. These concerns were significantly increased this year by the war in Ukraine, where, according to repeated reports by different international organizations, Russian forces were suspected of significant human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture, summary executions, rape and other sexual violence, enforced disappearances and forcible transfer from Ukraine to Russia of many thousands of civilians and human rights defenders, journalists, politicians and activists. Contrary to the State party’s obligation to protect the right to life, many thousands of casualties, including children, had already occurred in the war.
Russia had argued that it was its sovereign right to choose how the Committee’s Views were to be fulfilled. However, the Expert argued that the State party would be in breach of its obligations under the Optional Protocol if it rendered examination by the Committee moot. Amendments had been made to the Constitution so as to make decisions of intergovernmental bodies ratified by Russia that were incompatible with the Constitution not enforceable in Russia. The State party had yet to implement any of the Committee’s Views. Were these Views only enforceable if domestic authorities agreed? Was there a permanent internal mechanism that prepared the State party’s reports and implemented the Committee’s concluding observations and Views? The Expert called for information on training offered for judicial officers on human rights issues. Had the Covenant been applied in any court proceedings?
Another Committee Expert said that the Covenant and the Committee’s general comments continued to apply even in situations of armed conflict and military occupation. The State had not notified the Secretary-General of derogation from Covenant rights. The Russian Federation had in February 2022 claimed that the situation in Donbass and Luhansk was a non-international armed conflict, and that South Ossetia was an independent State and therefore all allegations of violations of the Covenant should be addressed to it. However, the Covenant was applicable to situations and persons under the control of the State.
Since February 2022, the situation had deteriorated dramatically. There were reports of excessive use of force, extrajudicial executions, use of torture, use of rape and sexual violence as tactics of war and intimidation of the population, mobilisation and forced conscription of civilians, arbitrary arrests and detentions, ill-treatment of detainees, and ill-treatment of the civilian population.
Chechnya and the North Caucuses had been and continued to be the scenes of serious and continuous violations of the rights of the Covenant in a climate of absolute impunity. There had been around 8,000 enforced disappearances between 1999 and 2006, and these were continuing today. No investigations of such incidents had been carried out, nor had victims been returned to their families.
Human rights defenders were targeted in Chechnya and the North Caucuses because of their activities on combatting assassinations and acts of torture and intimidation. A climate of impunity existed in this regard. There had also been serious and massive violations of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. There were allegations of mass abductions, attacks, verbal and physical violence, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and torture practised by the authorities on the basis of perceived or real sexual orientation, again in a climate of total impunity. The Russian Federation had failed to take measures to identify the perpetrators of the violations. The European Court had found that there was a systemic problem in investigating the numerous cases of kidnapping and violence in Chechnya and Ingushetia. The Expert called on the State to address these violations.
Another Committee Expert said that there had been forced conscription of individuals in the North Caucuses to fight in the war in Ukraine. In September 2022, 20 women who protested the conscription of Chechens were detained and beaten by law enforcement officers. Such treatment violated the prohibition of inhumane and degrading treatment under the Covenant, and was inconsistent with the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials.
One Committee Expert said that religious representatives were the source of hate speech. The Russian Constitution and Criminal Code protected citizens against discrimination. However, there were problems with the implementation of this law. Hate speech was common, and was often accompanied by violence. Migrants from the Caucuses and Central Asia, Muslims, Ukrainians, the Roma and refugees were often targets. The State needed to pursue policies to root out hate speech. Various religious leaders had stigmatised the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. Such discrimination needed to be prevented.
Racial profiling was another issue that affected these minority groups. The issue had worsened during the pandemic. Law enforcement officials had used artificial intelligence technologies to collect information about certain races. This practice could lead to errors and improper targeting, and should be ceased.
The legislation on extremism lacked clarity, and could apply to mundane activities that did not imply violence. The State had classified songs, Islamic and Judaic documents as “extremist documents”. This indicated that the State was using the legislation on extremism to target religious groups.
A Committee Expert said that since 2015, the institutionalisation of discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons had been considerably bolstered. In the North Caucuses, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were subjected to “correctional” rape, forced marriage, and genital mutilation. The Duma was working on finalising a text aimed at strengthening “the fight against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex ideology and propaganda”. Under this legislation, such persons would be equated with paedophiles and terrorists. It was the duty of the State to specifically combat such hate-based violence. However, the law provided for total impunity for perpetrators, and encouraged “conversion therapies” aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity by force.
Civic space for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and non-governmental organizations that defended their rights had significantly shrunk since 2015. The Committee Expert reiterated the Committee’s 2015 recommendations and Views in individual communications on the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression without discrimination based on transphobic or homophobic prejudices.
Another Committee Expert said that there had been over 65,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2016. Police often refused to register complaints, so the actual figure was likely much higher. A Government survey had found that 38 per cent of Russian women had been subjected to verbal abuse and 20 per cent had experienced physical violence. Only 10 per cent of those people had reported the incident to the police. Between 2010 and 2015, two-thirds of homicides were attributable to household related motives, about 14,000 women died each year at the hands of their husbands or relatives, and up to 40 per cent of all serious violent crimes were committed within families. Assault on family members was considered a criminal offence only if committed for a second time within twelve months or if it resulted in at least “minor bodily harm”.
Russia had not enacted a law on domestic violence or any other similar laws. The COVID-19 pandemic had exacerbated the situation, with a more than 50 per cent increase in the number of women who reported cases of domestic violence to hotlines. Was the State party considering enacting legislation on domestic violence? The majority of offenders were currently fined, and these fines were typically paid through families’ shared bank accounts. Training needed to be provided to law enforcement, the judiciary and other public officials on domestic violence. The State party also needed to consider significantly increasing the number of places in State-run shelters, and regularly conduct nationwide information campaigns on the adverse impact of domestic violence.
One Committee Expert said that the 2006 Counter-Action against Terrorism Act, and article 205 of the Criminal Code regarding terrorism, were used to prosecute political opponents and those criticising the Government. In 2018, a journalist was convicted for “justifying terrorism”. In the journalist’s trial, the defence counsel was not given adequate time to prepare their case. “Justifying terrorism” did not comply with the Committee’s general comment on freedom of opinion and expression. There were credible reports of incommunicado detention, torture, and ill treatment of members of at least 40 groups classified as terrorist organizations during the reporting period. Such treatment violated the Covenant right to liberty.
Another Committee Expert said that the Russian Federation had claimed that the increase in reports of torture of human rights defenders since 2020 was due to “media hype”, and that most allegations of torture had been found to be “baseless”. Videos of torture in detention facilities could only be kept for one month, and could not be referenced in trials that occurred more than a month after the incident. There had reportedly been over 100 cases of rape and torture in the Saratov Hospital. Perpetrators enjoyed a certain level of impunity, receiving only light sentences. The State had not criminalised torture. A draft bill on torture was being considered in the Duma in 2022. Would this bill be sufficient to prevent the practice of torture? Isolation was used as a form of discipline against detainees who filed complaints. This practice had been formally abolished on paper, but was still practiced. Torture was particularly prevalent in detention centres under the control of Russian troops in Ukraine. The State needed to criminalise acts of torture and make it a stand-alone offence, and to carry out systematic investigations into any allegations of torture.
One Committee Expert commended the efforts of the Russian Federation in the development of the national legal framework improving the situation of stateless persons, asylum seekers, and temporary asylum and refugee status holders in Russia. However, a sizeable number of individuals remained stateless or at risk of statelessness with undetermined nationality. A federal bill on granting asylum had been drafted. The State needed to expedite the adoption of this law, taking into consideration the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The main challenges for asylum seekers included hampered access to the asylum procedure; limited reception of non-Ukrainian persons in need of international protection; and difficulties in integration for temporary asylum holders and recognised refugees. Legislation did not offer asylum seekers free of charge legal aid.
Another Committee Expert said that the Constitution of the Russian Federation guaranteed the independence of judges, their security of tenure and their inviolability. However, judges of the Constitutional Court and of the Supreme Court were appointed and dismissed by the Council of the Federation upon proposals by the President, and judges of federal courts were appointed by the President. Recent constitutional changes had reduced the number of the judges in the Constitutional Court from 19 to 11, and judges were now prohibited from publishing dissenting opinions. Furthermore, all federal and regional law enforcement agencies had been brought under the direct control of the President. The Expert called for sufficient guarantees to be in place for ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and prosecutors.
Only 50 to 60 per cent of court rulings seemed to be implemented. The lack of execution of judicial decisions was the main reason for filing cases against the Russian Federation before the European Court. Investigators, lawyers and bailiffs were perceived as corrupt. Acquittal rates remain extremely low. In 2019 courts acquitted just 0.36 per cent of all defendants. What measures were in place to combat corruption in the judicial system; to force judges and prosecutors to declare their assets; and to address the lack of confidence of citizens in the judicial system? The Expert expressed regret that lawyers had been prevented from defending persons prosecuted in connection with anti-war protests.
A Committee Expert said that Alexei Navalny, a political opponent of the Government, was still in jail after being imprisoned in January 2021. In April 2021, the European Court had ruled that his right to a fair trial had been violated, and called for his release. In March 2022, his sentence was extended by nine additional years. What was the basis for his imprisonment?
Over 130 candidates or potential candidates for regional elections in September 2022 were prosecuted for administrative or criminal offences, preventing them from standing for election. Around 60 of these candidates were charged under Russian anti-extremist legislation. Vladimir Kara-Murza had been charged with treason for public speeches that opposed the Russian authorities in general and the war in Ukraine. Political opposition and speech critical of the Government was essential for a functioning democracy.
Activists and dissidents who exercised their right to free expression were sometimes sent for psychiatric evaluations and treatment as a means of exerting pressure or punishment. There was also serious concern about the use of sophisticated State developed poisons to silence, punish and kill at least a dozen prominent dissidents, opposition leaders and activists in the past decade, including Nobel Laureate Dmitry Muratov in 2022.
It had been reported that “independent journalism had been destroyed in Russia”. There had been thousands of cases of harassment and persecution of journalists, and dozens of murders and attempted murders. Journalists had also been abducted and tortured. There was no information that these cases had been effectively investigated. Ivan Safronov, a highly respected Russian journalist, had been sentenced to 22 years imprisonment in September 2022 for “high treason” for sharing “State secrets”. He did not have a chance to adequately consult with his lawyers. Hundreds of Russian journalists had been detained for reporting on the war in Ukraine or protests about the war. A sadly growing number of journalists, lawyers and Russian dissidents had been targeted, murdered, or detained by Russian forces. These were serious violations of the Covenant right to freedom of speech.
One Committee Expert expressed concern about provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting “insults to citizens’ religious beliefs”; 537 people facing such defamation charges had been sentenced to pay fines and 167 to community service. This law seriously limited freedom of expression and the press, and also hampered anti-corruption investigations and other public inquiries and debate.
Another Committee Expert said that the independent media was subjected to extreme pressure in the State. Was the political and financial independence of the media maintained? Government officials appeared to control all television outlets and various major online media organizations. The independence of the media appeared to have been considerably worsened during the war in Ukraine. The Union of Media Workers and Journalists had been dissolved. Criminal prosecutions of journalists now happened on an almost daily basis, and there were also cases of torture of journalists. The State needed to put an end to harassing dissident journalists, repeal repressive laws on freedom of expression, and conduct investigations of incidents of harassment of journalists.
Russian universities were required under law to obtain permission to contact foreigners. This provision was overly restrictive on the research activities of universities. The Government should repeal this law to support the activities of universities.
A Committee Expert said that persons planning to conduct public demonstrations were required to report to authorities. Was this in fact an authorisation rather than a notification process? The law on peaceful assembly and demonstrations was very worrying. There had been mass arrests occurring in response to peaceful demonstrations in the reporting period. The courts had examined over 400 cases of lack of notification of protests in 2019. In 2015, legislation was reviewed to make participation in protests punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Under this law, the number of political prisoners was ever rising in Russia. Protests against the conscription introduced this year had resulted in thousands of arrests. It was necessary for the Russian authorities to review these policies.
One Committee Expert said that there were reports of widespread ill treatment, including torture, of detained anti-war protesters. Two Russian Orthodox priests were being tried on different criminal charges for their opposition to Russia's war in Ukraine.
The 2012 Foreign Agent Law allowed the designation of individuals or organizations as “foreign agents” if they received any amount of funding or training outside Russia. Such persons were issued disproportionate sanctions, including forced labour, and their organizations were dissolved. This law violated the rights of freedom of expression, association, privacy and participation in public affairs. Hundreds of independent journalists, human rights defenders, and organizations were registered as “foreign agents”. This law had been used to target and dissolve many human rights organizations, including the prominent non-governmental organization “Memorial”, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2022. The Expert called for the reopening of “Memorial”. The Expert also called for information on the 2015 Undesirable Foreign and International Organizations Law, which allowed for the criminal prosecution of any “undesirable” foreign or international organization and its employees.
Another Committee Expert said voters had the right to complain about the decisions, actions or omissions of polling station officials in relation to the counting of votes, and State and municipal media outlets were obliged to ensure equal conditions for election campaigns. However, the electoral law contained provisions to counteract “extremist activities” during election campaigns. Candidates’ registration could be denied if they took actions “of an extremist nature”. There were allegations that the Government limited the ability of opposition parties to register candidates for public office.
Constitutional amendments passed in 2020 nullified the number of presidential terms served by the current President, and allowed President Vladimir Putin to participate in the 2024 presidential election. Institutions such as the Venice Commission had found that the Constitutional amendments went far beyond what was appropriate under the principle of separation of powers.
Recent elections of 18 governors and 11 regional legislative bodies were marked by similar allegations of Government interference and manipulation. Independent election monitors logged thousands of reported abuses during these elections at the regional and local levels. Over 60 opposition candidates were removed from the ballots. Opposition parties were repeatedly denied registration or faced court-mandated suspensions of their activities. Anti-extremist legislation was used as grounds for suspending political opponents. These measures violated the Covenant right to freedom to participate in public affairs.
The Expert also addressed the situation in Crimea, saying that several international bodies had raised concerns about possible violations of human rights in Crimea. According to reports received by the Committee, occupation authorities of Crimea continued to interfere with peaceful assemblies, civic activism, journalism, anti-war rhetoric, or any disagreement with Russia’s actions in Crimea. Since September 2021, occupation authorities in Crimea had conducted mass detentions of participants attending peaceful assemblies in support of victims of politically motivated persecution, mainly of Crimean Tatar origin. Almost 300 people were reportedly victims of enforced disappearances. Russian authorities in Crimea also persecuted, arrested and convicted lawyers who provided professional assistance to victims of political repression. Russian authorities had also forcibly mobilised about 34,000 Crimeans to take part in hostilities against Ukraine. In 2021, there were nine physical attacks and threats on media workers in Crimea. At least 25 websites of Ukrainian media outlets were fully blocked in Crimea, in serious violations of the Covenant.
One Committee Expert said that Crimean Tatars were in a very worrying situation, being subjected to multiple forms of harassment. Religious communities in Crimea were also subject to various attacks and acts of intimidation. The Expert called on the State party to provide Crimean Tatars with improved protections against harassment.
Another Committee Expert said that the State party had not provided information on the measures taken to prevent pollution of the air and soil, degradation of drinking water, and destruction of sacred and burial sites, such as Karagay-Lyash sacred mountain, as a result of industrial operations. It had also not responded to allegations of harassment of indigenous human rights defenders.
The Expert congratulated the State party for being the first to prepare and adopt a vaccine for the Delta strain of the COVID-19 disease in August 2020, and for sharing this vaccine widely. However, Russia had comparatively low vaccination rates, and high COVID-19 death rates. The State party needed to strengthen efforts to increase the vaccination rate. It also needed to ensure that it did not violate children’s right to privacy through the collection of data on online educational tools introduced during the pandemic.
Closing Remarks
PHOTINI PAZARTZIS, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee expressed its regret that the Russian Federation had chosen not to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Committee. The Committee had raised a number of concerns, including as regards excessive and disproportionate restrictions of rights, including of freedom of expression and assembly of journalists, political dissidents, lawyers and human rights defenders, and closure of media outlets and websites. The pluralism of voices was essential in any open society. A Committee Expert had raised concerns about reports of extrajudicial arrests, prolonged arrests, ill treatment in detention that was not investigated, and a lack of independence of the judiciary. The Committee placed importance on continual engagement with the State party. It called on the Russian Federation to review its legislation and practices with a view to implementing the rights protected under the Covenant. In closing, Ms. Pazartzis thanked all persons who had participated in, witnessed and facilitated the dialogue.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CCPR22.029E