Thursday, 19 October 2006 -- all day (09:00-22:00 GMT/UTC; 16:00-05:00 in Bangkok; 11:00-24:00 Geneva time; 05:00-18:00 in New York)

HREA organised an all-day public chat session on the human rights crisis in Chechnya. Russian human rights defenders and experts from the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) responded to questions about the background of the conflict, the nature of the human rights violations, and efforts undertaken by international organisations like the Council of Europe and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) to end the conflict, among other topics.

Ten years after the catastrophic 1994-1996 war, which killed almost 100,000 people and reduced the capital of Grozny to rubble, the armed conflict in Chechnya still continues. Both parties in the conflict, the Chechnyan rebels and the Russian authorities and army, continue to violate human rights and humanitarian law, including acts of torture, extrajudicial executions and disappearances. Civilians have been the prime victims of this armed conflict, which started in 1993 when Chechnya wanted to break away from the Russian Federation.

Featured Guests

Featured guests were Ms. Damelya Aitkhozhina (Russian Justice Initiative), Mr. Joachim Frank (IHF), Mr. Krassimir Kanev (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee), Ms. Eliza Moussaeva (IHF) and Mr. Ole Solvang (Russian Justice Initiative). They responded to questions, explained the background of the conflict and took comments throughout the day.

Background

The following documents and websites provide background information on the human rights crisis in Chechnya:

Documents

An Uncertain Future: The Challenges of Return and Reintegration for Internally Displaced Persons in the North Caucasus (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and "Memorial", October 2006)
Unofficial Places of Detention in the Chechen Republic (IHF, 15 May 2006)
In a Climate of Fear - “Political Process” and Parliamentary Elections in Chechnya (IHF, 1 January 2006)
Briefing - Torture, “disappearances” and alleged unfair trials in Russia’s North Caucasus (Amnesty International, 30 September 2005)
Russian Federation: Violations continue, no justice in sight. A briefing paper on human rights violations in the context of the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic (Amnesty International, 1 July 2005)
Recommendations to the Council of Europe regarding ongoing human rights violations in the context of the armed conflict in Chechnya, Russian Federation (Amnesty International, 20 June 2005)
Impunity: A Leading Force behind Continued Massive Violations in Chechnya (IHF, 19 May 2005)
The situation in the Chechnyan Republic (Report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) (Council of Europe, 20 April 2005)
Russian Federation: The Risk of Speaking Out - Attacks on Human Rights Defenders in the context of the armed conflict in Chechnya (Amnesty International, 12 November 2004)
The Silencing of Human Rights Defenders in Chechnya and Ingushetia (IHF, 15 September 2004)
Chechnya: Enforced “Disappearances”, Extrajudicial Killings and Unlawful Detentions – An Update (IHF, 4 August 2004)
Still in a State of Terror - Chechnya after the Referendum (IHF, 10 September 2003)
Public statement concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT (10 July 2003)
Russian Federation: Update on the situation regarding Chechens and in the Chechen Republic following the October hostage taking incident in Moscow (Amnesty International, 7 November 2002)
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture: Public statement concerning the Chechen Republic (10 July 2001)

Websites

Chechnya at Human Rights Watch
Chechnya (Russian Federation) at Amnesty International
"Demos", Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF)
"Memorial"
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Russian Justice Initiative
Links to other organisations involved in Chechnya

---------------------------------------------

From the Moderator:

Good morning/afternoon/evening!

Thank you for joining today's conversation about Chechnya.

We are very pleased and honoured to have with us Damelya Aitkhozhina (Russian Justice Initiative), Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank (both of the International Helsinki Federation of Human Rights, IHF), Krassimir Kanev (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee), and Ole Solvang (Russian Justice Initiative), who has made themselves available to answer questions despite their extremely busy schedules in advocating for a solution for the Chechnya crisis. They will respond to questions, explain the background of the conflict and take comments throughout the day.

You are encouraged to submit questions, or discussion points. To ask a question, click at the "Ask Question" link on the bottom of the page.

-Frank Elbers, Moderator

----------------------------------------------

Question by Edouard Kayihura (USA):

As survivor of the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda I have witnessed the failure of the international organizations in the prevention of the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda. Today we are experiencing the same failure in Sudan. Do you believe the international organizations have power to solve or to prevent conflicts? If you believe it, why this prolonged human rights crisis in Chechnya? If not, what is the cause of the failure of these international organizations in preventing or solving the conflicts?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Edouard,

I do believe that the international community is able to prevent genocides and other crimes against humanity. I can give the recent example of Kosovo where the successful intervention of NATO in 1999, although questionable from a legal point of view, prevented serious atrocities that would probably have taken place on that territory. It is however obvious that its willingness depends on a number of factors - power structure at the decision-making level, economic and political interests, racial prejudices etc. It is in this sense clear that its ability to deal with the crisis in Russia is much less than e.g. in the case of Kosovo. Russia is a permanent member with a right of veto of the UN Security Council, which, at least in theory, should take the decision for any measures, economic or military, to make them legal. It is a country of huge natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, which it sells to many other countries of Europe. For a number of political and economic reasons it has also influence in many countries of Asia and Africa. And, last but not least, it has a big military potential. So, under these conditions it is hard to imagine how the international community, reluctant as it was and continues to be to intervene in Rwanda and Sudan, would be willing to intervene in any way against Russia. Its response to the Chechen crisis is perhaps the clearest reflection of the inherent injustices of the present system of international security and protection of human rights.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Robert Gjedia (Albania):

How is human rights education (HRE) situation in educational system in Chechnya? Is HRE included in the education system, for example in primary education?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Robert,

Unfortunately, I am not too familiar with the educational system in Chechnya. I have checked with our staff members who come from Chechnya and as far as they know, there is no subject taught directly concerning human rights. They did not know about the topic of human rights being discussed as part of any other subjects either, at least not in primary education.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Rowland Cole (Botswana):

What role is the United Nations playing in settling this problem and addressing the human rights concerns?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Rowland,

The United Nations did not play any role in settling the second Chechen war. Not only was there no resolution by for example the UN Security Council – where Russia of course has veto power – but to my knowledge there was also no effort by any country to bring the conflict on the its agenda.

The human rights concerns were addressed in two resolutions of the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2000 and 2001. In the following three years tabled resolutions were rejected, and in 2005 no resolution was tabled. However, the previous and the present UN High Commissioners for Human Rights visited the conflict region one time each and afterwards addressed the grave human rights situation there with very clear messages to the Russian authorities. Some of the Working Groups (for example the one on Enforced Disappearances), Special Procedures, as well as the Committee Against Torture, are trying their best to address the problems. [For an overview of the various UN human rights bodies, please see the study guide on The United Nations Human Rights System, Mod.]

On the humanitarian side the UN institutions – the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UNHCR, UNICEF, World Food Program (WFP), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others - are doing very much on the ground.

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Joseph Wronka (USA):

I was in Moscow a few years ago at a human rights conference and heard about some Russian and Chechnyan mothers who were starting a movement not to allow their children to fight in that war. Apparently, some of the women (from I believe Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, an international organization) were arrested by both Russian and Chechnyan governments. Is all that true? Whatever happened to that movement? Do you think it was and/or could be effective?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for your question. I think you might be referring to the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia (UCSMR), which was established in 1989. The organization is alive and well and today works mostly with protecting soldiers from hazing in the military. The soldiers' mothers were also involved in peace efforts during the first Chechen war.

Because of its criticism of conditions in the Russian military, the UCSMR has received some negative attention from the authorities. I am not sure whether any of their members or staff was ever arrested, however.

Their web-site: http://www.ucsmr.ru/english/

----------------------------------------------

Question by Asya (Bulgaria):

My question is very simple: Why absolutely no one talks about the crisis situation outside Internet??; on TV and newspaper there is not a word. And also why no one helps refugees and survivors of this absurd war? Thank you in advance.

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Asya,

This is one of the major problems with the Chechnya crisis and, at the same time, one of the causes for its persistence. The reasons why Western media write on Chechnya very rarely are several:
* The ongoing campaign on the "fight against terrorism" which often goes hand in hand with implicating Muslims, including the Chechens, as terrorists;
* The success of the Russian official propaganda in presenting the Chechen conflict through the prism of the fight against terrorism in the first place, also in the West, particularly after the Dubrovka and Beslan events;
* Difficulties for Western journalists to travel to Chechnya to engage in investigative journalism;
* Lack of vision for a realistic course of action that would lead to a satisfactory solution, belief that "you can't do anything with the Russians";
* Inaction of the Western politicians and international organizations - there are no initiatives, no events going on that need to be covered.

There are some organizations that help refugees and survivors from the war. The Danish Refugee Council operates for many years now in Northern Caucasus. Several NGOs, including the Russian Justice Initiative, Memorial, as well as a number of human rights groups in North Caucasus help victims bring their cases to the justice system. There have been several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on cases that originated from the conflict in Chechnya. Many more are pending.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Hugue Charnie Ngandeu Ngatta (Cameroon):

This question concerns the humanitarian aspect of the crisis: What is the situation of displaced persons due to this crisis, and what is the legal environment structuring the protection of civilians forced to search asylum?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva answers:

Dear Hugue Charnie,

The only legal document protecting the rights of migrants is a law regarding forced internal migrants. But this law covers only those who were granted this status, and those – during the second Chechen war - are only a handful of people. With respect to the thousands of other internally displaced persons I would say that they are one of the most-unprotected groups.

The biggest number of refugees from Chechnya has been accepted by neighboring Ingushetia, up to 200.000 at the beginning of the war (with a population in Ingushetia of nearly 300.000). But as the presence of refugees/IDPs is a proof for the existence of a war, the authorities did everything possible to force the majority of them to return to Chechnya using blackmailing, deception and threats.

Therefore, people were forced to go back to Chechnya, where they had no place to live, because there was not enough accommodation places in the so-called temporary accommodation centers. Recently, the prime-minister of Chechnya started a campaign to even abolish these centers. Additionally, migration within Chechnya, down from the mountains, continues, where it is still very unsafe to live. Thus, there are thousands of people in Chechnya, who have no place to live. The State basically ignores them.

Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Bernard Mugisha (Uganda):

What strategies are we putting in place to hold Russian and Chechen rebel commanders accountable for gross human rights abuse? What are our options: the ICC [International Criminal Court, Mod.], the European Court of Human Rights?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Bernard,

Thank you for your question. The first question that needs to be decided is what the nature of the conflict is. It has been clearly established that the first Chechen war (1994-1996) was a conflict of non-international nature and therefore fell under common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol 2 (see http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/chechnya-print.html and even a Russian Constitutional Court decision of 1995). Because of the many similarities between the first and the second war, I think few would disagree with calling the second war a conflict of non-international nature.

This leaves us with several options for holding Russian and Chechen rebel commanders responsible for gross human rights violations, which I will present shortly in a separate message.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Lydia Onyeka (Nigeria):

What role is the judiciary playing in all this? I seem not to hear a lot doming from that direction. Is there so much breakdown in the existing laws that a recourse cannot be found within them. Or it is just a case of the laws not been obeyed?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Lydia,

I was just about to answer that question! The most logical place to hold Russian and Chechen rebel commanders accountable are Russian courts. There are, of course, provisions in Russian criminal code to convict people for "ordinary" crimes such as murder, kidnapping, torture etc. There are also provisions in Russian criminal code for war crimes and genocide, although the definitions and details of these leave something to be desired. In any case, Russia has ratified all four Geneva conventions and the additional protocols, which by article 15 of the Russian Constitution is applicable also in Russia.

Unfortunately, practice shows that there is a lack of willingness to use the available provisions to prosecute war criminals etc. On the Russian side, there have only been only a handful of cases where people have been held accountable for human rights abuses in Chechnya. Most notable are the cases of Budanov, Lapin and Ulman. Budanov will most likely be released later this year while Ulman has twice been acquitted, but is now facing a third trial. For crimes committed by the Chechen side we also see a problematic approach. Amnesties, although nominally not applicable to perpetrators of serious crimes, are freely given as long as the person demonstrates loyalty to the existing structures. In most cases, this has meant becoming part of Chechen prime minister Ramzan Kadyrov's paramilitary group.

Relying on the principle of universal jurisdiction it would be possible to hold war criminal accountable in the domestic courts of other countries. Countries such as the UK, Belgium, Germany and other have used this principle to try and convict criminals from for example Rwanda and Congo. Human Rights Watch has published a very good report on the use of universal jurisdiction.

This approach was attempted in Sweden by the Swedish Helsinki Committee in January when they filed a complaint to the Swedish prosecutor with regards to a Russian general who at that time participated in a joint military exercise in Sweden (http://shc.mediaonweb.org/en/1/60/339/).

The problem with this approach is that the suspected criminal must physically be in the country where he or she is charged, or at least be expected to be there in the near future. In addition, governments are usually reluctant to make excessive use of this principle because of diplomatic problems this will cause. Immunity is also and issue here. The Swedish prosecutor refused to launch a criminal investigation because he assumed that the general had immunity.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Rowland Cole (Botswana):

I believe that the constitution of the former Soviet Union had a clause permitting the various states to break away hence the demise of the USSR. Could Chechnya not legally break away under this provision? Does the constitution of the Russian Federation prohibit this?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Rowland,

These are the questions that hit in the heart of the Chechen crisis. Article 72 of the Constitution of the USSR from 1977 (the so-called "Brezhnev Constitution") provided for the right of "free secession" only for the 15 Soviet Republics. These, according to Article 71, included: The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic, the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. All of these former republics used this right by 1991 and became independent states. As you can see however, the Chechen-Ingush Republic is not among them and could not be - it had a status of an "Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" (ASSR), which was part of the Russian Federative Socialist Republic. The ASSR did not have the right of secession. In 1991 the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation gave Chechnya a status of a separate republic but, again, inside the Russian Federation. This status it retained under the new Constitution of Russia. Thus, the situation there is more or less like the one in Kosovo - it too had autonomy inside Serbia but under the Constitution of Yugoslavia it did not have a status of a republic with a right of free secession. It is another question to what extent under those circumstances Chechnya can use the "right to self-determination" in declaring independence (which it did) and being recognized as an independent state by other states and by intergovernmental organizations.

The experience shows that normally the states would not recognize this right if there is no consent by the state, of which this territory is a part. There have been many such situations in many parts of the world (remember the "Republic of Biafra" in Africa), including, at present, several on the territory of the former Soviet Union - Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhasia, Transdnistria and others. Although all of them declared independence, none was recognized by international community. It is very hard to imagine how a country like the Russian Federation, with so many other potential secessionist territories and with a widespread nostalgia of the breakdown of the Soviet Union nowadays, will agree to grant independence to Chechnya. And if international community is not willing to recognize the independence of Kosovo without obtaining the consent of Serbia, which became very much a pariah state after 1999, it is hard to see how it will do the same in the case of Chechnya against the will of Russia.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Tanya (Moldova):

I have two questions: 1. Is there a peaceful opposition group that the Russian government could negotiate with? 2. What do you think it will take for the hostilities, on all sides, to come to an end?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Tanya,

It would be good if there would be a peaceful opposition group in Chechnya with whom the Russian government could negotiate. However, there is no possibility at the moment in Chechnya for a peaceful opposition, as there is no possibility for a free democratic process. Groups who would advocate separatism, even when they do would it with peaceful means, would immediately be cruelly targeted.

If the Russian government would want to negotiate, they would have had a very good opportunity to do it with former Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov. But instead they killed him. And if the Russian government would want negotiations now, they still could do it, for example via the envoy of the armed fighters, Akhmed Zakaev.

So far, the only method used by the Russian government is brutality, first by its own forces, then mainly via the local Kadyrovtsy.

Joachim and Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Peter Kum Che Mbeng (Cameroon):

I would like to find out whether there are no other preventive possibilities or alternatives to the severe human rights abuses going on and what has been the contribution of international bodies to see that the perpetrators are tracked down and punished accordingly.

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Peter,

Let me try to answer your question about prosecution by international bodies, also in order to complete my answer to Bernard Mugisha's question:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is unfortunately not an option. Russia has signed the Rome statute that created the Court, but it has not ratified it. As far as I know, there are also no immediate plans to do so. The ICC has jurisdiction only after a country has ratified the Rome statute and then only for crimes committed after ratification.

The human rights abuses in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other places have been dealt with by setting up ad hoc tribunals, courts with jurisdiction over crimes committed only in particular places in a particular time period. For Chechnya, this option was proposed in 2003 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=161102&apc_state=henicrs2003). It is, however, unclear what authority would create such a tribunal. The ICTY and ICTR were created by UN Security Council resolutions. Russia, of course, has veto powers on the SC, so that is not an option. The other ad hoc tribunals have generally been established with the consent and cooperation of the states in which the conflicts took place. With Russia's opposition to accountability for crimes committed in Chechnya, it seems that this is not a viable option either.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has not traditionally been used as an instrument for holding war criminals accountable. The ECHR does not pass judgment on individual criminal responsibility as the ICC does. Instead, it examines to what extent the state can be held responsible for crimes and abuses that have taken place on its territory. However, if one looks at some of the cases before the Court concerning Chechnya, the issue becomes a little bit more complex. In some of the first cases from Chechnya, for example, the Court found that Russia had violated the European Convention for Human Rights by not paying enough attention to protecting the civilian population in the planning and implementation of major military operations. In these judgments the Court also talks at some length about the role played by general Shamanov and general Nedobitko in the planning and implementation of these operations. Likewise, in the case Bazorkina v. Russia, the Court specifically indicated that an execution order given by a Russian general to a recently arrested Chechen man who subsequently disappeared, at the very least put the man in a life-threatening position.

We can therefore see that although the Court does not pass judgment on individual criminal responsibility, it does touch upon this issue. As a consequence of these judgments, Russia is now under the obligation to properly investigate these violations and hold accountable those responsible. Joachim can perhaps talk more about what international human rights organizations are doing to make sure that Russia is fulfilling its obligations in connection with ECHR judgments.

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Yes, interesting in that context is that in the rulings there are also so-called "general measures" mentioned, that is measures that the Russian Federation is obliged to take in order to make sure that this type of rights violations do not occur again in the future. Hereby it is the role of us international (but of course also Russian) human rights organizations to influence the Russian Federation, so that it takes a really sufficient range of measures. And we should of course always remind the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to demand such a sufficient range of measures from the Russian government. The Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe can hopefully help in this effort. And of course we have to keep monitoring the measures - or lack of them - taken by the Russian government to implement the rulings.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Karla Vratna (Czech Republic):

Dear all, especially Eliza whom I've met a few years ago in Prague...

I have a question concerning the current position of local NGOs in Chechnya, in which (as far as I know) have been working lots of former human rights activists. My impression is that during past years their work has been also oriented on a very practical aid in field to empower citizens. Are these organizations supported by local administration, do they communicate with each other and what are perspectives of this governmental and non-governmental sector in Chechnya?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva answers:

Dear Karla,

Nice to hear from you! Thank you for your question. Human rights groups still exist in Chechnya and the neighboring republics, but the situation around them became more dangerous.

Before, we dealt mainly with violations of human rights or international humanitarian law by the big Russian army, which was like dealing with an anonymous war criminal. Today, human rights NGOs mainly deal with human rights violations of pro-Moscow Chechen groups, most of them now formally part of the Chechen law enforcement apparatus, and hereby concrete Chechen leaders are accused, which brings an additional risk.

As these Chechen leaders are all part of the Chechen government structure or cooperate with it, you can understand why the government does not support human rights groups. Additionally, today it is very unpopular to be a real human rights defender in Chechnya. There are less and less people who want to cooperate with human rights defenders because of the atmosphere of fear. For example, this Monday only some 43 persons participated in a memorial picket for Anna Politkovskaya in Grozny, despite the fact that she was very popular among Chechens. People were just afraid to show their sorrow or support.

There is communication between human rights groups and parts of the local government, for example the Prosecutors Offices, and of course there is good communication among the human rights groups. There is also some level of communication with the Chechen President, Alu Alkhanov.

Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Prabu R. (India):

How effectively are human rights implemented/followed in western countries...?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Prabu,

Although the European system for protection of human rights is perhaps the most effective at the international level, there are many problems. The campaign against terrorism after 9/11 affected negatively the situation in many European countries, as it did in the USA. Some countries adopted restrictive legislation, particularly on asylum, in others some groups and especially the Muslims were selectively targeted and many individual Muslims suffered serious human rights violations. Even the European Court of Human Rights could not escape bias in that atmosphere and with several recent decisions, such as the Refah Party v Turkey and Leyla Sahin v Turkey, upheld the prohibition of an islamist party and the ban on the hijab in the Turkish universities on some rather suspicious grounds. In a number of European countries racism and discrimination towards some minorities (e.g. Roma) is rampant. None of these situations however can compare with Chechnya in gravity and persistence. The loss of life, summary executions, "disappearances", destruction of property as well as the involvement of public officials as perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity makes this the deepest human rights crisis in Europe nowadays.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Amrit Shrestra (Nepal):

What are the stages of political conflict management?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Amrit,

There are different ways to achieve piece in a conflict and the conflict management theories often confine themselves to this aspect only. Sometimes piece is achieved at the expense of human rights as has been the case so often in the past. This was the situation in the former Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia under communism - Chechens, Kosovars, as well as dozens of other groups were held under control by force for decades. The approach of the present-day Russian administration in that respect seems to be a continuation of the communist policy. As a mater of fact the situation in Chechnya right now is more peaceful as it was five years ago - at the expense of thousands of lives lost, persons "disappeared", tortured and displaced, houses destroyed. However maintaining peace in this way nowadays becomes less and less possible. More and more people are concerned not only about peace but about the respect for human rights too. And we want peace that is based on such respect and is not maintained with arms and prisons.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Mikael Storsö (Finland):

I have tried to find some figures about the number of Chechen refugees, internally or internationally. Do you have any reliable numbers upon this item? For example, how many refugees are actually in EU?

-----

Damelya Aitkhozhina answers:

Dear Mikael,

There is also a large number of Chechens who fled for instance to Kazakhstan (since many were born in Kazakhstan after deportation in 1944), but they are not been granted refugee status (there was an estimation of 25,000 by the Chechen community in Kazakhstan as of 2000).

Eliza has already covered relating to internally displaced persons (IDPs), but there are thousands of people who fled the conflict, especially during the first campaign. Many fled to neighboring countries of the Southern Caucasus, but there is a great discrepancy between the numbers of people present there, who fled the conflict and those of them who are recognised as people of concern with UNHCR, for instance there is an approximate 10,000 of them in Azerbaijan (as estimated by the Chechen community leaders) and only 800 recognised by the UNHCR. However, according to the UNHCR data, the majority of them are Kistins -- ethnic Chechens originating from Georgia who reside in the Pankisi valley in eastern Georgia. A number of them at some point left for Chechnya and fled to Georgia after the hostilities there erupted. The number of Chechen refugees in Georgia is currently estimated at 2 586 (UNHCR Statistics for the end of 2004).

The situation with granting refugee status differs from country to country. The Chechens receive status in Georgia on a prima facie basis. However, this status has to be renewed every year. In Azerbaijan they primarily get it under UNHCR mandate, subject to provisions of 1951 Refugee Convention. Some are relocated to the Western European countries, USA and Canada, but they usually have to wait for several years before the relocation.

The humanitarian situation of asylum seekers and refugees is rather difficult, the humanitarian assistance provided is deemed to be insufficient. Earlier this year PACE issued Resolution 1497 (2006) on Refugees and displaced persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia calling these countries to grant a more durable status to recognised refugees, including Chechen refugees.

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

According to the newest report from the Migrants Rights Network - at www.memo.refugee.ru - the Russian government claims that within Chechnya there are 48.000 IDPs, while international agencies claim that it is 180.000.

In neighboring Ingushetia, as of 31 July 2006 there were around 22,000 IDPs from Chechnya registered for assistance in the database of UNHCR's implementing partner DRC, according to www.ocha.ru.

According to UNHCR, there were around 170.000 IDPs in Russia at the end of 2005. This of course is less than even the number of IDPs within Chechnya, but probably reflects the different definitions used for IDPs.

As for refugees and asylum seekers: according to www.unhcr.org, at the end of 2005 there were around 103.000 refugees and 14.000 asylum seekers from the Russian Federation.

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Deniz (Turkey):

As you all know, last week we lost a very brave woman, a woman of courage, Anna Politkovskaya. I wonder in her absence, will it be possible to get accurate news from Chechnya?

-----

Damelya Aitkhozhina answers:

Dear Deniz,

Thank you for your message. Yes, we did lose a women of courage in Anna Politkovskaya last week [see the various press releases in the Headlines section of this webpage, in the right-hand column, Mod.]. I can only add some sources we use in our work. The Information Center of NGO Council, provides day-to-day information on disappearances, arbitrary arrest, detention, summary executions and abuse of power my federal forces and para-military units -- covers Chechnya and neighbouring republic of Ingushetia.

"Caucasus Knot" - Memorial NGO news coverage on Caucasus, contains section on the situation in Chechnya, however only available in Russian. And there is the Prague Watchdog coverage on Chechnya.

-----

Eliza Moussaeva answers:

Dear Deniz,

There is still reliable and accurate information from Chechnya produced, for example by the Human Rights Center "Memorial", the Chechen Committee for National Salvation, the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and others. But these are human rights reports from human rights organisations, and people do not read it like they read Anna's articles. She was not the only Russian journalist seriously reporting from Chechnya, but the number 1. From this point of view nobody can replace her.

Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Djibril Balde (Senegal):

I would like to know why the Russian government discriminate and stigmatise people from Chechnya living in Russia? Is it because they are Muslims? Or is it because they constitute a danger for the public order? If so don't you think that those 50 000 skinheads constitute not only a public danger but they destroy the image of Russia in the national and international level. Why the Russian government does not promote the creation of human rights organisation? For instance, I was studying in the region of Tambov but there was non human rights organisation. I would like to know why in Russian universities human rights values are not taught? Don't you think that people from Chechnya and blacks are not facing the same issues in Russia seeing that are stigmatised, humiliated sometimes subjected to violence or killed. Don't you think that Russian intellectuals are also responsible because of their passivity if human rights violations are increasing and some neo-nazi or skinhead hold meetings inside some universities? How in some some Russian TV stations you can give the floor to people who promote violence, hatred, racial supremacy...? Thank you. Djibril Balde.

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Djibril,

You pose many important and difficult questions. Let me try to answer some of them. I think that several of your comments and questions relate to the existence of racism and xenophobia and the reason for their existence in Russia. You are quite right that racism and xenophobia are significant problems in Russia today and that the problem seems to be on the increase. You are also quite right that this problem concerns all people who look difference, including, as you say, blacks and Chechens.

It is difficult to give a short answer to why racism and xenophobia are so prevalent in Russia. However, I think that part of the answer can be found in the following factors:

Firstly, Russia (and the Soviet Union) has never undergone a process of transitional justice that has allowed it to properly deal with some of the crimes of the past (for example the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, the deportations, the GULAGs etc). The only thing coming close to this was Khruschev’s speech at the 20th Party Congress where he dealt with some of the “excesses” of the Stalin regime. This, however, was an internal discussion among party members and all blame was put on Stalin. There was no widespread discussion of how this could have happened, who, besides Stalin, carried responsibility, how to compensate victims etc. In comparison, Germany, Japan, South Africa, and even the Baltic states are examples of countries that have undergone extensive processes of transitional justice in the form of rehabilitation, restitution, prosecution, compensation, truth commissions etc. The absence of such a transitional justice process in Russia means that Russia has not dealt with the crimes of the past and that therefore these crimes could more easily happen again.

Secondly, Russia has undergone tremendous economic, social and political changes beginning with Gorbachev’s perestroika policy and greatly accelerated by the fall of the Soviet Union. This has led to significant economic growth. However, the positive windfall of these changes have benefited a very small group of people. For the rest, all socio-economic indicators such as life expectancy, unemployment, poverty etc has deteriorated to such an extent that Russia today has more similarities with so-called third world countries. Life expectancy for men in Russia today, for example, is 58 years. Consequently, a significant portion of the Russian population has not been able to benefit from the changes over the last decade. I think it is common consensus that there tends to be a correlation between deteriorating socio-economic indicators and growing racism and xenophobia.

Thirdly, the Russian authorities have to some extent played a dangerous game of trying to harness the support of right-wing factions while trying to control them. For example, the party Rodina, a party that mainly appeals to xenophobia, was created by the Kremlin to lure votes away from the Communist Party. The strategy was successful in the sense that the Communist Party lost significant votes to Rodina. However, the party in the last elections has become so strong that the Kremlin now is trying to rein it in. Controlling Rodina and its followers, I believe, has turned out more difficult than the Kremlin thoughts. In addition, Kremlin policy and statements by Putin have not contributed to dampening xenophobic feelings. A recent example is the authorities’ reaction to the arrest of Russian military officers in Georgia. In reaction, the authorities have launched a campaign against everything and everybody Georgian; Georgian restaurants have been closed, postal and other communication services have been severed and hundreds of Georgians have been deported from Russia. Europe has not seen mass-deportations like this since the Balkan wars and the developments produce chilling flashbacks to other times. In connection with the Russian-Georgina row, Putin said recently that he had enjoined his ministers to protect the interests of “Russia's native population” against the ethnic gangs who, he said, control the street markets.

An article in the current Economist posed the question whether it is now time to start using the f-word (fascism) about what is going on in Russia today.

I know that this is far from an exhaustive analysis, but I hope that this provides you with some answers.

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Djibril,

We agree with you that the existence of a large number of skinheads as well as of other right-wing extremists, constitutes a public danger. And this danger was not yet started to be tackled by the Russian authorities. While there are articles in the Russian criminal law against “inciting hatred on racial or religious grounds”, this article so far was rather misused than used, when it was the head of the human rights NGO “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society”, who was convicted for having published a peace appeal by the former Chechen President and leader of the armed Chechen rebels.

And it is true that the Russian government does not promote the creation of independent human rights organizations. Just to the contrary, with a new NGO law it tries to tighten the control, creating possibilities to shut them down easily should there be a political demand by one or the other authority. And more and more often there are efforts to use the electronic media, that is TV, to launch big negative PR-campaigns against human rights groups among the Russian people. Almost all independent mass-media in Russia have been closed, and they are doing everything possible to close independent NGOs. They apparently do this, because they seem to be afraid of independent human rights groups, who try to fulfill a watchdog function.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Jeremy Putley (England):

My question might be considered a little off-topic, I hope you will forgive this.

Mr Andrei Illarionov has recently argued that the presidential system is wrong for Russia, which would be better served by a parliamentary system of government. The conduct of the wars in Chechnya has demonstrated that the system of presidential government is capable of behaviour that is, incontrovertibly, criminal. The war crimes carried out by the Russian military are clear and undeniable evidence of that. There has been no move to impeach the Russian president in respect of the crimes of his administration for which he must be held ultimately accountable. This appears to support the Illarionov case. So my question is, do you agree that the presidential form of government has been proved a failure for Russia, and it should be replaced by parliamentary government?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Jeremy,

I don't think the form of government maters so much in semi-authoritarian countries with lack of rule of law, where the formal power is often not where the Constitution says it ought to be. It may be true that presidential forms of government usually avail themselves more to establishment of autocratic rule (e.g. in Latin America) but the form itself is by no means the only factor. Please note that almost all communist countries, even under Stalin, were formally parliamentary governments. Yet, they were totalitarian and committed atrocious human rights abuses. I wouldn't blame the war crimes committed in Chechnya on the presidential form of government. I can easily see them being carried out under a parliamentary government as well.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Ana Tabidze (Georgia):

Dear All,

The question refers to the relationship of Russia and Chechnya. Taking into consideration the fact of killing prominent Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya One who was rear journalists who was not afraid to deal with issues of Chechnya and saying truth, as a result, she is now killed. Bearing in mind this fact, do you think that Russia's attitude towards Chechnya will ever change. Unfortunately I doubt. And how do you think what is the possible way out from this situation?! Will Putin (and all his consortium) ever leave these poor people and let them live normal lives?! What can the international community do to handle this issue?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Anna!

Perhaps we have to wait till 2008. Maybe the election of a new President can change the situation in Russia. Only when there is a real democratic system in Russia, we can hope for progress with respect to Chechnya. And also with respect to a lot of other fields, including the relations with neighboring countries like Georgia ...

We have to hope!

Eliza and Joachim

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Anna,

Anna Politkovskaya was certainly not the only person in Russia who spoke against the official Russian policy on Chechnya although she was probably the most prominent among the journalists. There have been many human rights advocates who have been and continue to be vocal critics of that politics too. Some of them faced official pressure, e.g. the recent judgment of the Nizhni Novgorod court to suspend the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and the conviction of its President previously. As for the relationships between Russia and Chechnya, they have in fact changed over the past several years. Now the conflict is more "chechenized", i.e. Chechen participants were more and more involved in it from both sides with Russia pulling the strings on the backstage. When will this end? I am not very optimistic. Russian civil society has not been able to adequately deal with it inside Russia and international community was reluctant to take even the softest measures against Russia.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Can Kesgin (Turkey):

First of all I would like to congratulate you for doing very vital job. I want to ask you,as I read a news on 12 October in the Reuters alert web site. One of UN Special envoys work for international assistance for displaced people in Chechnya as well as in Azerbaijan said food stock are about to end at the end of this month. How can we make them working and solving out those problem for suffering people?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Can,

Yes, I read the same thing, that Jean Ziegler, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, has said that international assistance in Chechnya via the World Food Programme (WFP) was cut back to only wheat flour - usually it also includes oil, sugar and salt - and could be cut entirely by the end of this month. He then asked donor countries to "immediately honor their legal obligations and ensure the realization of the right to food of displaced persons in the Chechen Republic and in Azerbaijan."

So it is on the donor countries to fulfill the requests by Ziegler and the WFP ...

Joachim

-----

Damelya Aitkhozhina answers:

What I've been told by UNHCR persons of concern and refugees of Chechen origin, who fled the conflict and are currently residing in Azerbaijan - that is that their monthly allowance is about 70 USD per person per month, whereas the cheap accommodation cost is approximately 120 USD per month... (but that is information provided by Chechens themselves, I didn't have an opportunity to inquire about the humanitarian assistance provided with the relevant agencies). But it seems that UNHCR plays one of the key roles in assisting those people in Azerbaijan. From what I have heard from the Chechen community, Norwegian Refugee Council does a good job in humanitarian assistance, inter alia significantly supports and runs educational programs. Chechens in detention in Azerbaijan are considered to be the ICRC persons of concern, it makes regular visits to the places of detention.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Dominik Hauber (Germany):

Which steps, do you think, would have to be taken in order to bring lasting peace to Chechnya? Is it possible at all, at this point of the conflict? Finally, in dealing with the crimes committed, do you think there would be a realistic chance for a Restorative Justice approach?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Dominik,

The most important step in our view would be to end the severe forms of human rights violations ("disappearances", extra-judicial killings, torture) and to end impunity in Chechnya. Only then the people would slowly gain trust in state authorities.

Also, there has to be a intra-Chechen dialogue started, to tackle the hatred between Chechens. And of course the Kremlin has to radically change its approach and to stop this conflict.

Elements of restorative justice can support all this.

Eliza and Joachim

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Dominik,

Thank you for your question.

If my understanding of restorative justice is correct, a precondition is that the offender or perpetrator acknowledges responsibility for the offenses. In most cases regarding violations in Chechnya, the perpetrator is not known and in the cases where it is known, they vigorously deny having committed any crime. One example is the Ulman case where several soldiers killed several Chechen at a checkpoint on the orders of a commanding officer. They acknowledge the facts, but they deny responsibility since they acted on orders. Two juries have acquitted them on similar grounds. In addition, the authorities usually also do what they can protect the perpetrators and prevent them from being held accountable. Therefore, it seems to me that the possibilities for restorative justice processes are limited at this point.

A condition for bringing peace to Chechnya, I believe, is an end to the climate of impunity. Today, grave human rights violations are committed regularly and nobody is held accountable. This has created an atmosphere of fear and an almost complete lack of trust in the authorities. Until you end this climate of impunity, people in Chechnya will not trust neither their local, nor their federal government.

In the long run, the only realistic way of holding perpetrators accountable is through the Russian judicial system. It is therefore the challenge of everybody involved to put pressure on/convince the Russian authorities to start properly investigating and prosecuting these violations.

There are several ways of going about this and various human rights organizations have their own approaches that complement each other. Our organization is trying to convince the Russian authorities to hold the perpetrators accountable by using the European Court of Human Rights. You can read more about this on www.srji.org/en.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Michael Kakatera (Malawi):

It seems that this conflict has been there for over ten years, and in the process human rights violations, especially of the vulnerable such as women, children and the elderly have continued. What is the international stance on this conflict? Would it be wrong to assume that international response is selective? Why should other areas of conflict receive quick attention bearing in mind that human rights enjoyment is universal?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Michael,

Yes, that’ s right, the armed conflict is going in since 1994, with a very unstable peace between 1996 and 1999. With the present international system the response is necessarily selective. There always will have to be a coalition of the willing to address an armed conflict and/or a grave human rights crisis, plus the country concerned should no be too powerful. This in essence means that countries like Russia or China can be responsible for the deaths of ten thousands of people, including women, elderly and children, and there will be nevertheless only inadequate or weak responses by the international community.

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Debeb GebreEgziabher (Ethiopia):

1.How do you evaluate the conflict in Chechnya and Darfur in terms of human rights violations, especially against women and children? 2. What roles can the regional organizations such as African Union (AU) and EU play in protecting the human rights of civilians?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear GebreEgziabher,

There are lots of similarities between the two conflicts. But also some differences. The number of killed and displaced in the Darfur conflict caused by the Sudanese government forces and Janjaweed is higher, as is, possibly, the number of destroyed properties. There aren't that many victims of rape among the Chechen women and girls as in Darfur. I however believe that the level of involvement of the central government forces in Russia, including as perpetrators of serious human rights violations, was higher, although it has decreased somewhat recently, due to the "chechenization" of the conflict. Chechnya is a much smaller territory with much less population than Darfur.

As for the roles (actual and possible) of the international community in both conflicts, there are also both similarities and differences. The international community failed to get seriously and effectively involved in both conflicts albeit for different reasons. Whereas racism and traditional neglect of Africa (as in Rwanda) play a key role for the inaction in Darfur, it is more political and economic interests and lack of belief that an effective involvement is possible that hampers the involvement in Chechnya. [HREA organised a chat session on Darfur last October: Human rights crisis in Darfur (27 October 2005, Mod.]

----------------------------------------------

Question by Rosaline Costa (Bangladesh):

When the politicians fight for power, making the civilians, especially women and children, the worst victims of their conflicts, violate the human rights of the innocent people, how does the state responsible persons or the international human rights bodies justify these acts? Who are to be the responsible for making a state "a civil and democratic state" and why the UN does not play an active role to stop these ongoing conflicts?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Rosalinda,

First of all, the Russian authorities do not even acknowledge that there is a severe human rights crisis in Chechnya and the whole North Caucasus. For example, the 2001 resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the Russian Federation to establish a national broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to investigate promptly alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed in Chechnya. The Russian Federation did not establish such a commission of inquiry and instead only created an ineffective office of a special representative of the Russian President for ensuring human rights in Chechnya.

Second, the Russian authorities claim that the second Chechen war is an anti-terrorist operation. However, using the methods they use, is only creating the very terror they are allegedly fighting.

Third, about why the UN does not play an active role to stop the ongoing conflict? The only UN actor that could make a real difference in settling the conflict would be the UN Security Council. And in this Security Council the Russian Federation has a veto power.

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Kiplangat Cheruyot (Kenya):

What could me the long term solution the conflict resolution in Chechnya if the human rights are not taught in elementary schools and if discrimination is still at large in job employment?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Kiplangat,

The long-term solution to the conflict in Chechnya has been sought by many for a long time and I don’t think I can provide a one-shot solution.

However, I think you are indicating to important elements in your question. No doubt, greater knowledge of human rights, including through elementary education, and adequately dealing with xenophobia and discrimination will be part of it.

I think that any stable solution has to include an end to impunity for abuse and violations that are being committed by all parties to the conflict. First of all, this applies to the federal and local security structures. Unless there is an end to the violations committed by representatives of the authorities (local and federal), the local population’s trust in government will further deteriorate. To re-establish this trust it is also of vital important that the authorities properly handle violations that have been committed. This needs to include elements of compensation to the victims as well as prosecution of the perpetrators. Without a more genuine effort to address the violations that have, and are, being committed, I think the prospects for a long-term stable solution is bleak.

In addition, I believe that a long-term solution probably requires a greater willingness on the part of the authorities to use political means to settle the conflict. Of course, I do not advocate that the authorities should necessarily negotiate with war criminals or terrorists. I do not propose any views on the political status of Chechnya either. However, I do believe that relying only on military means to solve the conflict will not be successful.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Dominik Hauber (Germany):

What do you think are the main reasons for the perpetuation of the conflict and what options for action do the Western (or those pro-human rights) countries have?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Dominik,

I believe that the main reason for the perpetuation of the conflict in Chechnya is the fact that Russia is a big player in international politics (it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and not only this) and a source of economic resources that the Western countries are eager to benefit from. Under those circumstances of course no one expects military action as in the case of Kosovo (where the conflict was on much smaller scale). But at least some pro-human rights European countries could have brought an inter-state complaint against Russia at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (as with Greece under the colonels). This would have been a strong signal. But they were reluctant to do even this, although they were asked by several human rights organizations.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Alexander Umole (Nigeria):

What really are the efforts undertaken by inter-governmental organisations to end the conflict and particularly what role can NGO's in Africa play in resolving arising issues?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Alexander,

In my opinion, no inter-governmental organization was or is playing any significant role to settle the second Chechen war - which can be regarded as an internal armed conflict -, neither the United Nations, nor the Council of Europe, nor the OSCE. Things were different during the first Chechen war (1994-1996), when the OSCE played an important role to reach an end of the armed hostilities as well as a peace treaty.

All three organizations have taken up the issue in meetings, but only in the brief period between October and December 1999 this was done with serious intent. The only present activity by an intergovernmental organization aimed at contributing to conflict solution is a so-called “round table”, designed for an exchange of views involving political parties and local politicians from the Chechen Republic and the Russian federal authorities, organised by the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). So far there was only one round of this “round table”, in March 2005 in Strasbourg, whereby its biggest lack was the absence of Chechen separatists and armed rebels, which made also this effort more or less fruitless with regard to conflict solution.

In the first years of the second Chechen war there were repeated calls from outside actors, such as the EU and the USA, to “find a political solution”. However, Russia did not allow a real engagement from these two sides, as well as any meaningful involvement of the UN, the Council of Europe or the OSCE to settle the conflict. This was accepted by those bodies, either for reasons of “Realpolitik” or, as in the case of the OSCE, because Russia constantly was blackmailing the organization (with threats not to approve the budget or to leave the OSCE altogether). What role NGOs in Africa can play in resolving arising issues? Maybe to address your own governments, because they are all member of the UN, and some also in the UN Human Rights Council. In the old UN Commission on Human Rights, for example in 2004, from the 15 African member states 13 voted against a tabled resolution on Chechnya and 2 abstained. No country supported the tabled resolution. The resolution was rejected with 23 “no” votes and only 13 “yes” with 18 abstentions. [For more information on the UN Human Rights Council, please see the transcript of the recent chat session on Human Rights Council on 5 October 2006, Mod.]

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Alpha Beretey (Sierra Leone):

What has the international human rights committee [UN Commission on Human Rights, which was replaced by the Human Rights Council earlier this year, Mod.] done towards the situation? Are people abiding by the international human rights laws? Are there any human right groups to voice out the situation?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Alpha,

The UN Commission on Human Rights did pass good resolutions in the years 2000 and 2001. In the following two years tabled resolutions were voted down in the Commission, and since 2004 (or 2005) there was not even any resolution tabled by a member country of the Commission. Some diplomats of countries who had cosponsored earlier resolutions explained that it was fruitless to table another resolution that would be anyway voted down by a coalition of countries which for different reasons support the Russian Federation in shielding off any criticism.

While the resolutions in 2000 and 2001 were quite good, the Russian Federation nearly completely failed to comply with them.

The newly established Human Rights Council did not yet deal with Chechnya, but – given who has a vote in that Human Rights Council – I doubt that the attitude will be any different than with the Human Rights Commission. At potentially good thing is that this new body has a “universal periodic review”, reviewing the human rights performance of all UN states, starting with the members of the Human Rights Council, which includes the Russian Federation.

Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Kagan Akdogan (Turkey):

As Ramzon Kadyrov turns 30, his de facto ruling is likely to be de jure. Can this change, by any chance, improve the situation in Chechnya? We know there has been little or no progress in terms of human rights, abductions and tortures but there is an impression that situation of war in Chechnya may be completely removed in the foreseeable future.

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Kagan,

This is a very complex, but relevant question. You correctly indicate that there are still serious problems with human rights violations in Chechnya. People are killed, tortured and disappeared regularly and the perpetrators are not held accountable. At the same time, major military operations have largely ended. The economic situation also seems to be improving and development of infrastructure and other construction is taking place. Much of this construction is indeed funded by Ramzan Kadyrov and consequently he is enjoying increasing support in Chechnya (another relevant question is from where Kadyrov takes this money, but that is perhaps a separate discussion).

I think you can compare the developing situation in Chechnya with the situation in for example Uzbekistan or Belarus in this respect. An all-powerful dictator can provide stability in the short-term. However, in the long run, the absence of rule of law, lack of political opposition, lack of independent media etc will most likely lead to major unrest, like what happened in Andijan in 2004.

In Chechnya, a personality cult is developing around Ramzan Kadyrov, which might provide some stability in the short run. However, in the long run I am very worried that a system build around person and where everything is valued in terms of loyalty to this person is fundamentally unstable. One possible problem in the future is how Kadyrov and those people loyal to him will react if Kremlin starts limiting his power. As you might know, a majority of the people working in the local Chechen security services used to fight on the other side during the first war and was granted amnesty only on the condition that they demonstrate complete loyalty to Kadyrov and enter into his security forces. It is not far-fetched to worry that these people might once again switch sides if Kadyrov so commands and Chechnya might again see major military clashes.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Munawar Ali Shahid (Pakistan):

Pls let me know about the latest internal situation of the country, how are people, especially Muslims, other minorities living there? And what about children who lost their parents in the war, how many children are there living without parents, how is the state dealing with them?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva answers:

Dear Shahid,

First about the situation of Muslims: it is difficult for Muslims, because for many Russian, Islam is connected to extremism or radicalism. This is due to a lack of education. At the same time, the government does not recognize the multiethnic and multi-religious nature of their population – in theory they do but in practice not. Just as an example: Some days before her killing, independent journalist Anna Politkovskaya told our colleagues that she received letters from imprisoned Chechens in Russian prisons, who were not even allowed to read the Koran or pray.

How many children lost their parents in the war? We do not have statistics at hand, but it is tens of thousands of children who lost one or both parents. How is the state dealing with orphans? Many orphans live with relatives, and there are also some few orphanages. Socially it is very difficult to survive due to the lack of jobs in Chechnya,which is of course aggravated when you have more children. Government pays many for every child, but this sum is very low.

All children in Chechnya are traumatized. They were witnesses of bomb explosions, of arrests or disappearances, or of beatings and other severe forms of violence.

Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Laurent Houngnibo (Benin):

Can't the international community take concrete and real actions to end this "massacre"? What are the different UN resolutions about this war and why is Russia not punished for not respecting them? Can we expect peace one day for the population of Chechnya?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Laurent,

There was no UN Security Council resolution on the second war in Chechnya, and to our knowledge there was not even the try of a member country to bring this to the Security Council.

As for prospects for the future, we simply have to hope for peace in Chechnya. Without hope we could not continue our work, and without this hope the people in Chechnya could not survive.

Eliza and Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Hicham Filali Zehri (Morocco):

Hi,

I would like to use the reply sent to Asya as a starting point to my question. If you notice the first reason for lack of mass media, you will find the false stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists. If this is right, let anyone prove it.

Again if you notice with me that almost all wars are between two parts, one is The Islamic part; and the other a Christian or Jew: Palestine, Iraq, Taymor, Sudan, Bosnia and here Chechnya In all the situations we find a Muslim Country with an non one. And most of the time, the international community has no say, letting millions of people to be killed. This creates a worldwide voices of denouncing these wars; but with no action at all.

So people in Muslim countries have concluded that the wars are ideologically against Islam not a particular state or regime; and that there is a lobby which likes wars of this sort to prolonge? What do you think?

Regards

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Hicham,

It is true that the level of prejudice towards the Muslims in Europe went up over the past years. Many of them faced different forms of discrimination and harassment. As I said in my previous comment, even respected judicial bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, were influenced by these trends. It would however be an exaggeration to say that all the wars in recent years were fought by the Christians and the Jews against the Muslims and that Muslims were not able to get any protection from international community. In one of the examples you give, that of Bosnia, the international community intervened to stop the actions of the Serbs who are Christians and to protect the Bosnian Muslims from atrocities. Most of the persons who are tried these days in The Hague (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia are Christians and their victims were Muslims. Another example is Kosovo, where in 1999 NATO intervened to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity that were being committed by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic against the people of Kosovo, who are Muslims.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Simon Kokoyo Sirako (Kenya):

My questions concern the displaced youth. The future of any country depends on how its 'future' youth are treated currently, what are organizations doing to address challenges faced by these youth who have witnessed injustices to their people, country and culture?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Simon Kokoyo,

Todays youth grew up during war time. There are problems of education, of security, and therefore practically all of them are traumatized. They are a "lost generation".

Additionally, young men face a situation of special risk, and therefore their families try to send them abroad. But these young men also have not good chances, even if they make it abroad, because of all the factors mentioned before, and also because the asylum countries do not give them the needed attention.

For example in Austria, where there are up to 15.000 Chechen refugees, there is a severe lack of psychological treatment and also of social workers who would help the refugees to lead a normal life here. And this in Austria, which relatively speaking is one of the better countries for Chechen refugees.

Eliza and Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Odon Darjaa (Mongolia):

My question is related to international community's (particularly European Commission) action taken to outside actors of the conflict, it means weapon providers (mostly western countries), and some other external moral/economical supporters for the rebel groups. Do the EC, InterPol and/or other international organization can or willing to prevent at least economical support for rebel groups/non state actors in Chechnya?

-----

Eliza Moussaeva and Joachim Frank answer:

Dear Odon,

We do not know, where the rebel groups get their money and weapons from, but strongly doubt that they receive it from sources within the European Union. Therefore, there is little the EU could do in order to cut such support.

As for moral supporters for the non-terrorist part of the rebels, there is nothing that makes this illegal in most countries outside the Russian Federation. It is different of course when terrorism is involved, or support for terrorism. The government of the Russian Federation claimed and claims that the armed rebels as such are terrorists, which is definitely wrong and should provide a simple justification for their brutal policy in Chechnya. Terrorism is when civilian population is targeted.

Don't misunderstand us: We are not supporters for the armed rebels ourselves, not even morally. We just care about the human rights of all people in Russia, including Chechnya.

Joachim and Eliza

----------------------------------------------

Question by Rowland Cole (Botswana):

What exactly is the stance of the Russian government in the face of all these allegations of violations. Are they denying these atrocities, ignoring them and trying to pretent that they do not exist, justifying them, or covering up.

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Rowland,

In most of our cases investigation is suspended or closed because of an alleged impossibility to establish who committed the violations. In most cases, however, the authorities have not conducted the most basic investigative steps to solve the cases. They fail to question eye-witnesses, conduct forensic examinations, interrogate suspects or request information about relevant military operations.

In the cases that have been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, the authorities have for the most part argued that there is no evidence that representatives of the authorities committed the violations. They often argue that it might just as likely be rebels who have dressed up as federal soldiers to discredit the authorities. In some cases where the detention of the person is not in question they have tried to argue that the person escaped or where released.

In relation to statistics they often accuse human rights organizations of exaggerating numbers and the problems in Chechnya.

So, it is a mixed bag. Usually, they do not dispute the facts, but argue that they are not responsible for them.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Hakeem Yusuf (United Kingdom):

Is it not a fact that the on going war being waged by the Russian State against the people of Chechnya is a war crime for which the United Nations ought to intervene? Should Vladimir Putin not be declared a war criminal?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Hakeem,

Thank you for the question.

A little bit earlier I argued that the second Chechen war is an armed conflict of non-international nature, which makes at least part of the Geneva conventions and Additional Protocol 2 applicable.

In this sense there is little doubt that war crimes have been committed in Chechnya and that they have been committed on a large scale. Human Rights Watch reached that conclusion with regards to at least one incident taking place 5 February 2000. Human Rights Watch has also stated that the ongoing problem of disappearances in Chechnya is a crime against humanity.

One could argue that because of the scope of the problem in Chechnya the United Nations should intervene. Unfortunately, however, there are no chances that the UN could intervene against Russia's will. Any intervention would have to be authorized by the Security Council, where Russia has veto power. This is what happened during the Balkan wars as well. Despite information about atrocities being committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN could not act because Russia used its veto power and it was up to NATO to intervene. Russia being a major nuclear power, there is of course no chance that NATO will intervene. The only possibility would be if Russia invited the UN peacekeeping or peacemaking forces. I don't see any immediate chances of that happening either.

Whether a head of state can be tried for war crimes committed by soldiers under his command is an extremely complex question. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia attempted, as you know, to hold Milosevic accountable for crimes committed under his command in the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, he died in prison before he was convicted so we cannot say for sure whether he would have been convicted. What is clear from the trial, however, is that there was a significant burden on the prosecutor to prove that Milosevic knew about the crimes and that he in some cases gave orders to have them committed.

I think it is also appropriate to add that even though in theory the law should be blind to other considerations, the real world don't necessary work that way and whether somebody should be prosecuted is often very different from whether that person will be prosecuted.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Xaime Aranda (Asturia/Spain):

Hello, first of all, excuse me for my poor English. I live in Asturias, a little country inside Spanish and near to Basque Country. People here don't know what is happening in Chechnya, and I want to create a Chechnya support group. ¿Do you know if there is a similar group in Spain? ¿How many Chechen refugees are living in Spain? Thank you

-----

Eliza Moussaeva answers:

Dear Xaime!

We do not know exactly about the number of Chechen refugees in Spain, but we know that there are some.

Regarding a support group: ... we are in good contact with such a group in Italy. If you want, we can connect you with them, just for sharing their experiences. Also, in Spain at least one section of Amnesty International deals with Chechnya.

Eliza and Joachim

----------------------------------------------

Question by Luc Ansobi (Kenya):

It seems to me that the international community is really not interested in this situation in Chechnya since every body is concentrated on North Korea, Iraq without forgetting the recent fight in Lebanon. So, it is possible to stop this disaster and how the international community can concretely deal with this situation in order to stop all these human right violations. It is possible to work towards conflict resolution for the sake of peace in this part of the world. Can different international NGOs like Amnesty International work towards advocating in favor of respecting human rights mainly at the Russian Federation Government level? Since this government is justifying this war in the sense of preventing the Federation against terrorism, this does not mean that it allows to commit human right violation as it is the case on the ground. What the international community can concretely do taking account this situation?

Thanks alot for your response.

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Luc,

Many NGOs (AI, IHF, HRW, as well as dozens of Russian human rights groups) are monitoring human rights in Russia, have published many reports and made numerous public statements. On this background the record of Western countries and intergovernmental organizations is deplorable. The minimum these countries could do was to lodge an interstate complaint at the European Court of Human Rights. They didn't do even this. I am however not sure that the lack of will and response from international community is due to its pre-occupation with North Korea, Lebanon and Iraq. I believe that there are other reasons - Russia's political influence and economic resources.

The Russian government is right to look for ways to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks but it is not right to organize mass assaults on innocent people and justify this with the fight against terrorism. Other European countries (UK, Spain, Germany) too faced terrorism at different periods of their modern history. But in none of these efforts to deal with this problem resulted in mass destruction of cities, displacement of hundreds of thousands, summary executions, abductions and mass torture.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Filip Spagnoli (Belgium):

First of all, my apologies for this lengthy question. I think most people agree that a violent struggle for separation and self-determination, such as the one in Chechnya, is only rarely justifiable. Only nations which live under an undemocratic regime and which do not have the rights and institutional mechanism for their federal self-government and for the protection of their interests and identity can justifiably claim a right to violent separation. My question is twofold. First, do you agree with this premise, and second, was Chechnya in such a position when the violent revolt broke out? In other words, were all other means, available in the less than perfect Russian state of the time and available to the international community, exhausted or perhaps even nonexistent at the beginning of the violent struggle? If not, does this turn the Chechnyan cause into an unjust one? Or did it acquire its justification only after and because of the extreme Russian reaction to it?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Filip,

I agree with your premise. This was the situation of Chechnya immediately after the breakdown of the Soviet Union: The Soviet Union had a Constitution, written behind closed doors and adopted without any debate under the totalitarian rule in 1977. It provided for the right of secession for the 15 "soviet" republics. Why these and not others, few people can answer this question in a rational way. All of these "soviet" republics declared independence and they were soon recognized as independent states by Russia and by international community.

Chechnya did not have a status of a "soviet republic" and therefore it did not have the right of secession. On the other hand, this territory was included in the boundaries of Russia by force during the Caucasian War in mid-19th century. No one never asked the Chechens whether they wanted to be part of Russia or not. All their resistance was crushed at that time as well as on numerous occasions afterwards. During the Second World War the entire Chechen population was deported by Stalin and was allowed to return back to their homes only after his death. Deportation was executed with unusual cruelty by the secret police, with an act of genocide in the village of Khaibakh, where several hundred Chechens, including women, children and elderly were killed and burned out. Few people suffered such a harsh treatment under the Russian/Soviet rule as the Chechens. Was their determination to part with the Russians along with many other nations at the time justified? They believed it was. The international law does not give them the right to self-determination. Russians and others are afraid that if it is granted many other nations will follow suit drawing on this precedent.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Carina Smetski (USA):

Thank you to the HREA for hosting this informative chat session via the web. The world needs more issues of social injustice brought to light via this communication. Second: I learn from this chat session that the only UN actor that could make a real difference in settling the conflict would be the UN Security Council. Ironically, in this Security Council the Russian Federation has a veto power. In such a situation, shouldn't the Russian Federation not be allowed to vote due to conflict of interest and favoring their own agenda?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Carina,

A very interesting proposition indeed. Unfortunately, this is not the way the Security Council works. And indeed, during the establishment of the Security Council the big powers insisted on having veto power exactly so that they could veto decisions that went against their interest (exactly when there is a conflict of interest, you might say).

If being excluded from decision-making makes sense in other context if there is a conflict of interest, one can also see how this can become very dangerous when it comes to dealing with states that have nuclear capacity. One could imagine a situation where the rest of the Security Council was willing to intervene in a situation where vital interests of one of the big powers were at stake. If the big power could not use its veto power to stop such an intervention, it might be tempted to use, or at least threaten to use nuclear weapons to prevent the intervention in question. This would of course not be a very comforting situation either.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Bulat Betalgiry (Switzerland):

For more than a decade now the brutal war in Chechnya is not only physically killing innocent Chechen people but also creating havoc in minds and souls of both Chechens and Russians; this raw hate and vengeance will take many generations to heal, if at all. I strongly believe that the only way to start to effectively address the stalemate in Chechnya can be an international administration force, similar to the OSCE mission in Grozny under the former Swiss diplomat Tim Guldiman, who had succeeded in arranging the hitherto unprecedented high meeting in Moscow and the signing of the Chechen-Russian Peace Treaty in May 1997. Alas, Russia had unilaterally violated that very Treaty in 1999 with the onset of the second Chechen war. What is your estimate of the viability of an international peacekeeping force or administration being deployed in my troubled motherland in any foreseeable future?

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Bulat,

Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that the Russian authorities do not want any international presence in Chechnya, let alone a peacekeeping force. Since 1999 they have even been trying their utmost to control the movement of journalists and information published about the conflict. So, unfortunately, I don't see any possibility of a peacekeeping force or administration in the near future.

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Bulat,

May I add something to what Ole said: With respect to the little Chechnya mission of the OSCE, the Russian Federation did all it could to remove them from the conflict region (actually they were only based in Znamenskoe, which was far from the direct conflict zone), and of course succeeded to end their term with 31 December 2002. It had started its mission in the middle of 2001. Officially, the reason was that there could not be reached any agreement about renewing the mandate, but it was quite clear that Russia did not want an OSCE presence any longer at all. The mandate had been "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to assist with the delivery of humanitarian aid to victims of the crisis, to assist the authorities and international organizations with refugees and displaced persons, to promote peaceful resolution of the crisis and the stabilization of the situation in the Chechen Republic, and to support creation of mechanisms guaranteeing the rule of law". So there was not even any monitoring involved, which we human rights organisations always criticized, but the Russian Federation did not want it anyway.

Since then, the Russian Federation was quite successful to silence any discussion about Chechnya in the OSCE. Last year it even threatened for a quite long time not to approve the budget, shouldn't the OSCE change the way they want (which is to reduce their human rights component and to stop with their critical election monitoring). Of course, in such a situation there were even more hesitations to mention the word "Chechnya" within the organisation.

Likewise, in spring 2003, also the Council of Europe experts suspended their activities in Chechnya. The actual suspension was explained by security reasons as there was an attack on the experts' convoy.

Joachim

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Bulat,

I am not optimistic about the possibility of an international peacekeeping force in Chechnya. Who is going to take the decision for this - it ought to be the UN Security Council where Russia has a right to veto? Many believe that the situation in Chechnya is calmer these days than it used to be five years ago and that Russia is able to exercise effective control. Also - Russia's role seemed to be changing in the eyes of international community, it is more and more viewed as a mediator in a conflict between two "Chechen" sides, the local administration of Kadyrov and the rebel groups. This is a further argument to refrain from acting against Russia. Peacekeeping force had never been a viable option, even in the peak of the war and if international community failed to impose it then, it is still less going to be able to impose it today.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Jalloh Alpha Amadu (Sierra Leone):

Like any other country can the Russian federation allow the Chechnyans to leave as an independent state like the others. What authority does the Russian Government have over the Chechnyans?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Thank you for your important question, Jalloh. Unfortunately, we are running out of time in answering all the questions. Please see my earlier responses to this issue. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Chris Petch (Ukraine/United Kingdom):

Previous questions and answers in this session have touched on the issue of the fight on terrorism and how this is having an impact on the crisis in Chechnya. Until recently I was working in Ukraine, dealing with irregular migrants. There was great concern about the human rights abuses being committed against Chechens arriving into Ukraine from Russia. According to sources of mine working in UN agencies, many of those that attempted to apply for refugee status were refused. Many more were simply turned back at the border and handed to the Russian border guards. While in detention, families were split up with women and children separated from their fathers. Those unlucky enough to be returned to Russia were treated as suspect terrorists and seemingly further abuses of human rights were committed. However, the large international donors were applying pressure to the governments to conform to appropriate behaviour and begin to treat these refugees in accordance with international law. Can you comment on these problems and offer insight into how this situation is, hopefully, improving?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Chris,

I am afraid that I have no deep knowledge about the situation of Chechen asylum seekers in Ukraine. However, it seems to be the case that it is still not a safe country for asylum seekers, as it still deports some of them back to Russia or does not allow them to enter. In turn, this of course makes Ukraine itself a country where Chechen asylum seekers may not be deported back to, for example from Slovakia, Hungary or Poland. And in the Slovak case there are reportedly a lot of deportations back to the Ukraine, which is contrary to Slovakia's obligations as a signatory to the Geneva Convention [1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Mod.].

Joachim

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Chris,

I am well aware of this problem, it's not just in Ukraine. We are facing in fact two problems - the so-called "internal flight alternative" (IFA) and the fear of many countries to offer refugee status to people from Russia. The doctrine of the internal flight alternative allows the countries where a person seeks asylum to consider whether he/she might benefit from safe relocation within his/her country of origin. Thus a Chechen asylum-seeker might be rejected in Ukraine, as well as elsewhere, because the refugee agencies believe that he/she will be safe if relocated e.g. to Siberia. The assumption is that the source of the threat is local, not the Russian government per se. On the other hand, the fear from repercussion is particularly strong in Ukraine, which is dependent on the Russian gas and markets. Add to this also the lack of understanding and tradition to deal with asylum (Ukraine was until recently a source of asylum-seekers), you will understand that officials are looking at every possibility to reject the asylum claim. I suppose that with the "chechenization" of the conflict this problem will become more and more serious. I however don't know the most recent figures on asylum in Ukraine.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Rowland Cole (Botswana):

Like any other country can the Russian federation allow the Chechnyans to leave as an independent state like the others. What authority does the Russian Government have over the Chechnyans?

-----

Krassimir Kanev answers:

Dear Rowland,

I think Kosovo came soon after Rwanda and Bosnia. In both cases international community was ashamed with its inaction and wanted to save face. In addition, Slobodan Milosevicic lost any credit with anybody in the West. He was considered a real threat to the regional peace and security and Europe did not want another war waged by him in its backyard. The war in Bosnia and Europe's inaction during it was enough. Like Bosnia, Kosovo was considered a "European affair". There was a local pressure against Milosevic too from Croatia and Slovenia who had some important allies in Europe. And, last but not least, Serbia's army was weak and technologically quite backward. The intervention thus was possible without much loss. In sum - a combination of factors that made NATO intervention possible and effective. Some of these factors were present in Rwanda and are present in Sudan but, most importantly, the European countries never considered these conflicts to be "European affairs".

----------------------------------------------

Question by Sergey (Russian Federation):

Ole, based on your experience in representing applicants from Chechnya before the European Court of Human Rights, what is the tendency of overall human rights situation in this Russian region - is it deteriorating or improving, as many claim?

-----

Joachim Frank answers:

Dear Sergey,

Unfortunately, Ole is not available any more tonight to answer this question. My opinion is that the overall human rights situation is neither improving nor deteriorating, but that it remains at a very critical level. What changes are some features in the types of severe human rights violations, not the gravity. A relatively new trend for example is the fabrication of criminal cases of persons: they are first illegally detained and tortured, and then with the "results" of the torture they are "transferred" to legal places of detention, and subsequently convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Joachim

-----

Ole Solvang answers:

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your question.

I think the answer is that it is a mixed bag. On the one hand we see that the number of disappearances has gone drastically down the last couple of year. This does not mean that it is not a problem – it is – but there seems to be less disappearances now. Since major military operations are rarer, the number of civilian deaths has also decreased.

On the other hand, it seems that the use of illegal detention, torture and unfair trials has not decreased to the same degree. People are regularly convicted of terrorism charges based solely on confessions that have been extracted by torture.

There are several points that need to be added to this. First of all, human rights violations in any conflict are underreported. It is always extremely difficult to accurately document the extent of grave violations. In Chechnya we have seen that people are more afraid of coming forward and complaining about human rights violations now than they used to be. This is connected to the fact that while the perpetrators during the first year of the second Chechen war were mainly federal, they now mainly belong to local security forces. The local security forces have a much greater knowledge of the Chechen society and are therefore better at controlling it.

The second point I would like to make is that the decrease in disappearances and deaths, I believe, is related to the near complete power that Kadyrov enjoys in Chechnya today. People don’t have to disappear of be killed because they can be tortured and sent to jail on extracted confessions. This has the added benefit of demonstrating to Kremlin that the Chechen security forces are successfully combating terrorism. If the power situation in Chechnya changes (for example if there is a more serious competition for power or if Kadyrov should be removed) I think it is very likely that we will see a rise in the number of disappearances and summary executions again.

In short, yes, it is possible to say that certain violations have become less frequent, but this is not due to establishment of rule of law and we could therefore easily see the positive trend change.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Christiana Idika (Costa Rica):

Are some human beings more human than others? And what is the criteria for interventions in the different crisis spots? What and when does a genocide occur or crime against humanity?

-----

Moderator answers:

Dear Christiana,

Thank you for your important question. We only have a few more minutes left in this chat. Please see Krassimir's recent answer to Rowland about the factors that may lead to an intervention. For definitions for of the terms genocide and crimes against humanity, please consult the excellent Crimes of War book.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Samuel Mbithi (Kenya):

I believe the war in Chechnya continues because Russia's "peer" nations have turned their backs on the war. What do you think is the role of the public in the powerful nations of the world and indeed in all parts of the world in shining light on this conflict and finding a solution to its end?

-----

Moderator answers:

Dear Samuel,

Thank you for your question. As we only have a few minutes left we cannot elaborate on your question. We sure hope that informational sessions like this can at the least make all of us better informed citizens.

----------------------------------------------

Question by Alia Adelkari (USA):

What are some reliable relief organizations that people could donate to, to help the Chechens in Chechnya?

-----

Moderator answers:

Dear Alia,

Some relief organisation that are active in Chechnya were already mentioned: the Danish Refugee Council, the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitairian Affairs (OCHA), UNHCR, UNICEF, World Food Program (WFP), the World Health Organisation (WHO). It also important to continue to support human rights organisations like the IHF, the Russian Justice Initiative and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in their advocacy and monitoring efforts and also their groundbreaking litigation work before the European Court of Human Rights, as we learned about today.

----------------------------------------------

From the Moderator:

Dear all,

Thank you all, and of course, especially Damelya, Eliza, Joachim, Krassimir and Ole-- very much for participating in today's chat session. It has come to an end. Thank you all very much for the interesting questions and ideas, and your dedication!

We apologise to those whose questions we were not able to post due to the large numbers of questions we received. We hope that your questions were posed by others.

In the next few days we will be translating many of the contributions into Russian and will be adding additional resources on this web page, and links to organisations that are trying to make a difference.

Thank you again, and good evening/night/morning/afternoon,

-Frank Elbers

----------------------------------------------

Conversation about human rights crisis in Darfur

Conversation about child labour and the right to education with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education

Chat session about the continuing human rights crisis in Darfur

Blog from Darfur