Pamfilova. Thank you, Dmitry Anatoljevich. You know, esteemed Dmitry Anatoljevich, we have discussed the issues you had raised in your Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. I support you in a wide range of matters and, of course, I mean primarily the fight against corruption. Within our powers and authority, we are ready to contribute the course that has been declared in this area. There is only one very serious problem that we repeatedly face when we want to do something better, but get it as usual. The problem is who and how will implement all this? Well, who and how? We have some miserable experience, but people have really tired of words. They are awaiting particular deeds and just in this case, they are ready to undertake joint actions aimed at implementation of those. This is our task.

 

Medvedev. Ella Alexandrovna, I would like to answer this question right now, in presence of Mass Media representatives, because they will leave us soon in order not to disturb our work… You and I, nobody else, neither the United States, nor France, just you and I, both the officials and representatives of the civil society. Well, who else but us?

 

Pamfilova. That is why, I guess, the core issue of our meeting is a prevailing one that will be touched upon by all speakers. It is about what can we do in this direction and what responsibility can we take upon ourselves on the assumption of the current potential of Russia’s civil society, its capabilities? How feasible, effective and asked-for is the civil control? How should it be organized? These issues become especially crucial, if we take into account that the corruption has actually run through all life spheres.

 

Referring to the corruption issue, of course, I should mention that we and other non-governmental organizations, as well as the journalists who cover this issue and human rights activists, and public figures – all of them face serious attempts of suppression and discredit. And the murders of human rights activists, journalists and public figures are, unfortunately, still going on.

 

Definitely, there are some problems within civil relationship. Of course, all of us were taken aback by the murder of the priest. Well, it is another sphere, but we were taken aback. However, there are problems that concern us directly. You know, these are problems not just of the society and the state when such attempts are undertaken by governmental bodies or by secret services. And these are our common problems: deeds aimed at concealing legal violations or engagement in corruption. Nowadays not infrequently, the power authorization is misused for generating false information that can be later published to give ground for faked accusations. And under such unequal conditions, it is very difficult to defend one’s reputation legally. But this does not mean that it is impossible. It is possible. And we shall try to do it, we shall do it, and we shall accustom our citizens to do this.

 

Unfortunately, we have noticed that such a scheme works also against fair judges disliked by criminals and by affiliated with them law enforcement agencies. It is just a technical task to dig some murderous dirt up on them. Well, sometimes, a judge’s bad relationship with local community of the law enforcement agencies becomes one of reasons that prevent one’s appointment. However, we might need contrarily that the independence of a judge to become a key precondition for his appointment.

 

It is evident that the law enforcement agencies’ practical steps aimed at capturing business have become “the talk of the town”. Now, a murder that shocked all of us, a tragedy of lawyer Magnitsky is being widely discussed. You know, it has become a common place that a sudden death in pre-trial detention centres is a “work-related disease” of Russia’s entrepreneurs. This is, undoubtedly, a terrible tragedy when a lawyer 37 years of age dies, not even having been condemned criminal, but being just under examination. We have prepared materials on this issue suggesting particularly what can be done in this area. We shall submit them to you. And we are ready to contribute directly in order to better this situation all the more so, as we have a really great achievement regarding the penitentiary system after the session of the State Council you devoted particularly to this issue and hold it now under your personal control.

 

Of course, there is much has been done, but nevertheless, a problem persists, unfortunately, when fundamental reforms are entrusted to those very agencies which appear to be objects of the reformation. As a result, corporative interests prevail frequently over interests of the society. And it is extremely bad when people are forced to face situations – now I come to the judiciary – when they consider a court not a triumph of justice but a deadlock of it. You understand? It is nonsense when the courts are considered to be deadlock of justice! As a matter of fact, this situation destroys public legal consciousness. In such cases, phrase of bureaucrats “please take the matter to court” in answer to people’s angry complaints is now considered a mockery. Often senselessness of reference to the court is especially evident, if we refer to mass falsifications during the elections and to misuse of administrative resource or to unsuccessful attempts of citizens, whom the bureaucracy considers unconscious, to hold rallies and marches. The bureaucrats argue that if such citizens are unconscious, if they do not understand and have a distinct viewpoint, so they should not be permitted, their events should not be allowed. And local courts do often support the standpoint of authorities. Generally, these chronicle epics around rallies, when at the supreme moment, the premises denied and the meetings with marches rolled up, these stories deserved to be described by our humorists Zadornov or Zhvanetsky, if this situation would not have been so sad.

 

Besides, now the general public with sincere interest watches another “imprisoning campaign” against high-ranking officials and generals of law enforcement agencies and military departments, wondering if it is an actual element of fight against corruption or this is rather settling accounts by rival groupings. In this respect, we consider also that the society’s task is to prevent these measures to turn into short-lived campaign. We are ready to help you in this. You have said imprisonments required. And those will take place. But those should actually be connected directly and result from the very fight against corruption. Maybe, there is just one positive thing in this situation. Well, as the probability of VIP-imprisonments is getting high enough, so many officials who are responsible for pre-trial detention centres can do many positive things, taking into account that all of those, perhaps, could be useful for them as well. I think it is a really actual thing.

 

Well, speaking seriously, I can say once again that in spite of their restricted resources, which are weak so far, many non-governmental organizations are ready to contribute actively the organization of civil control. It must not be another supervisory agency. At a meeting with United Russia, you have said correctly that as it is, we have too much supervisors. No, this is not another supervisor pointing to what and how should be done, but it is a partner that will interact and cooperate in order to solve these problems.

 

We have very positive experience in this area. By the way, the Public Chamber does much in this respect, i.e. with regards to organization of civil control within penitentiary system. And we get fewer complaints from those prisons where such civil supervisory commissions work actively. There are many complaints coming from places that lack them. Well, then the system of civil control is effective if organized correctly and informally.

 

Now, with actual optimism, I would like to say about our strategic partnership with you as with the supreme power. At present, this partnership inspires certain optimism, particularly because the first very meeting has been productive enough. You have submitted the NGO-law amendments to the State Duma. You have launched a considerable work on creation of the most favorable regime for emergence and development of civil society. All this is worth much. I guess that until the end of the next year, we shall have presented our system groundwork for making civil society stronger in fact, so that it could influence more essentially what is going on in the country. Indeed, there is a Commission on migration policy that works and we expect the results of its work. Probably, Svetlana Gannushkina will talk then about it. There are some preliminary results of their work and it will be continued.

 

Of course, we are very grateful for your decision to have nominated a member of our Council –he is now sitting here among us – to the post of OSCE commissar on freedom of Mass Media. He is Mikhail Fedotov, the author of Russia’s law on Mass Media. This is very important for all people who want to see Russian Mass Media actually free, independent, and responsible. We would hope very much, we would like this appointment then to take place, our European colleagues to support us, and the representative of Russia to work then in this very important area. All the more so, because we have planned to devote one of our meetings to the freedom of Mass Media, as we have within our Council many experts who are concerned about this problem and have examined it seriously. It is very important and positive thing that your Decree has set up a position of children’s ombudsman. For us, it is extremely important as well that our colleague Alexey Golovan has been appointed to the post. The protection of children’s rights is one of the key priorities of the Council’s work. And taking into account that so much has been done, we consider it is time now to come from urgent, extraordinary measures aimed at solving problems of the children, to an integrated long-term social policy, which would support family and children, take into consideration all factors, produce a safe, non-aggressive environment for our children. I would say so.

 

Speaking again about the urgent measures, I should say, of course, that we need your support regarding two things, at least. It would be necessary to have approved in the transition period the law on guardianship and trusteeship, because it would permit to save a well-balanced system of patronage, which functions successfully in regions. It is that issue, which you have dealt with and have examined it thoroughly.

 

It is still critical to sever criminal liability for child sexual abuse and to work out a strong measures system that would prevent such crimes. You know, we need a double support and engagement of yours in this respect, as we have faced unprecedented counteraction. This counteraction is, perhaps, even stronger than that one we suffered earlier from lobbyists of GMO food products who nearly hampered the hearings on this issue, which was unprecedented. And Vladislav Yurievich [Surkov] – he is informed about this issue – helped us several times in order to prevent this. But that law the State Duma has just approved does not answer the challenges we face. And we must review it again.

 

By the way, few deputies together with representatives of the Public Chamber and with a number of experts have drafted an appropriate presidential decree, but your personal attention is needed, as this work may be confronted again by the lobby I’ve mentioned above.

 

Nevertheless, the problem is very serious, because the law enforcement agencies say that 12,5 thousand children were wanted at federal and regional level last year. And many of them become victims of criminal abuse, including dealmasters of pornoindustry. Perhaps, there appear to be sufficient reasons now to consider the idea of creating a national child search centre, which besides looking for missed children would prevent dissemination of child pornography in Internet.

There is a similar centre in the USA that demonstrates good results of its work. I guess that maybe we might consider this issue. Besides, it is necessary to have amended a number of laws in order to ban from work in child institutions those adults who have been sentenced to prison after child abuse. Indeed, we face such danger again.

 

I would like to draw your attention just to one other problem. I think, Tatiana Maleva then tell about it in detail. I mean it is necessary to raise welfare aids in order to support families with children after 1,5 years of age. We cannot move forward without federal political will, because the regionalization of aids has just sharply enforced inequality, which families with children coming from different regions face permanently.

 

Do you know what we have? In some well-to-do regions, the welfare aids reach 100% of living wage, but in poor subjects of Russia, the indicator is less than 4%. That is the difference. If a federal poverty aid is set up, it could eliminate this contradiction. Since long time ago, the experts have been speaking much about this. Perhaps, the question is ripe. By the way, this does not mean more budget spending. It means that the allocated funds will more accurately reach people, being plundered less and less. And it is especially critical under conditions of the crisis. This is a specific character of our huge country: however much we want to adopt all the better of Europe, nevertheless, the main guarantee of its integrity is not only an integrated energy system, an integrated transport system, integrated transport and communications, I would say, but it is an integrated social area that would connect with each other our various regions and basic social guarantees.

 

Also I would like to say the following. Another result of our meeting is that we have established very good work relations with chiefs of various law enforcement agencies, strange, as it may seem, because I had criticized them earlier and we shall criticize them in future. At the least – although it’s difficult to judge generally so far, as we have distinct results – they demonstrate their intention to collaborate with us and all of my colleagues can affirm this. I mean agencies like the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Military Prosecutor’ Office, the Investigation Committee, the Minister of Interior, and the Ministry of Justice. So, all of them are easy to get in touch and to cooperate with us. We have some changes for better, although the problems are, of course, still much more numerous so far. But it is our job. By the way, the agencies I have just mentioned are easier to get in touch with us than social governmental bodies like the Ministry for Social Development, which has disregarded a number of very serious requests. For instance, we have not received any answer from there regarding what they are intended to do in order to secure children's housing rights. We have not got any reply from the Ministry of Education either. However, I guess we shall fix the situation.

 

I would like to say also that this year, it is the first time (by the way, it is affirmed by Centre “Sova” and other non-governmental organizations, which handle racial hatred troubles) that we have witnessed real effect of more active prosecutions against Russian groupings that commit such crimes. It has been achieved mainly due to the Extremism Prevention Department of Russia’s Ministry of Interior. But, unfortunately, the effect has revealed itself just in Moscow so far. Of course, it is required to be disseminated throughout regions. It is very important as well that a legislative definition of extremist activity should be focused on its most dangerous forms. It is too wide and vague so far and this consequently result in illegal restrictions on civil freedoms, primarily, freedom of expression.

 

I would like to especially stress the problem of unfounded law enforcement practice in social hatred incitement cases. Surely, there can be criticism, including a very severe one, against ideological, professional, social and cultural groups, groupings and communities. There even can be announced demands to annihilate them, not in literal sense, of course, but as a social phenomenon. For example, there have been reputedly mentioned social groups like the high-ranking functionaries, the corruptionists and the bureaucracy in negative sense - "werewolves in shoulder-straps", etc. But all this is a part of public dispute in legal space of any democratic state. Nevertheless, in our country, it resembles an anecdote sometimes. You know about the cause celebre of blogger Savva Terentiev who has been accused of incitement to hatred against a social group. Well, the word “ment” is, surely, inappropriate and bad in the case of Russia’s militia. But does it worth to commit to court for this?

 

We can put to the similar rank a legal process in Orenburg, where a contraposition of people and the governor to bureaucrats has been considered by local court incitement to social hatred. In July 2009, in Kostroma, there were instituted legal proceedings against authors of a hypothetic Internet published draft law that would stipulate criminal liability for former deputies, during whose continuance in office, people’s life worsened. It was also considered incitement to social hatred.

 

Recently, there has been passed a sentence to member of Russia’s Communist Party Andrey Nikiforov. The incitement to social hatred was among charges brought against him after he had likened on his placard officers of the Federal Security Service to employees of the Cheka [the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution, Speculation, and Sabotage], NKVD [People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs] and KGB [Committee for State Security]. But he has right! Some one may disagree, but he has right! Recently, a local prosecutor’s office has demanded to qualify activities of Novosibirsk Human Rights Society extremism because of a picket placard. The placard contained slogan “The rights must not be awaited! The rights must be taken!”, which was interpreted by experts as a call to overthrow the government. We were forced to request the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to solve the incident, the collision – well, call it as you wish. And its response appeared to be operative, indeed.

 

Now as for unsolved problems. The questions related to the occurrences in South Ossetia in August 2008 that we raised during our previous meeting are, unfortunately, unsolved until today. We are especially concerned that Russia’s combatants who were at war in South Ossetia cannot now get the veteran status. In our previous meeting you, esteemed Dmitry Anatolievich, were attentive towards this issue and gave an appropriate order afterwards. Unfortunately, the problem is still unsolved. And committees of soldier mothers are now piled up with more than 200 requests written by servicemen, from colonels to soldiers. And we ask you also to consider opportunity of awarding posthumously lieutenant colonel Koventsov, aircraft commander of a strategic bomber shot by Georgian air defense in South Ossetia. He disappeared and the court announced him dead. Russia eternalized memory of soldiers who had fallen dead in South Ossetia. And we would ask you that lieutenant colonel Koventsov not remained forgotten as well.

 

Coming back to the problems in the North Caucasus, I want to say that the Council surely shares your concerns about there situation. That is why we would suggest, maybe, to devote one of our following meetings to this issue, within our powers. It is extremely important, because not only murders of human rights activists and public figures are still going on there. Civil activists are repeatedly expelled, as they raise acute problems and not hang upon words of local authorities. They are forced to leave the republic, even though they have lived there all their lives. The situation is very difficult. To this meeting, we could invite members of the Council who are engaged in this issue, Russia’s Human Rights Ombudsman (as we work closely with him in this area), some members of the Public Chamber who are also interested in solving the problem, and in the first place – human rights activists, people who work there. Let them tell us what is going on in the republic, how they do live there, what should be done and how at the cost of their own lives and a huge risk, they are forced to assert people’s rights and to fight against outrage and corruption.

 

You know, what is totally absurd is that inhabitants of Caucasus republics that are more subsidized and consequently more dependent from federal centre, for today – according to any of our analysis – less than others realize a correlation between their own welfare and Russia’s development in general. Less than others! They get more than other regions but realize this correlation less than all others. Today, I would draw your attention to the only aspect, which consists in the following. Maybe, urgently, a special program is required that would deal with the youth, especially if we take into account a high birth rate in the region and really unbelievable unemployment rate among there young people. Such program is needed, indeed. And, by the way, those organizations that work in the North Caucasus have a considerable experience how to have involved young people into processes of professional self realization for public utility, which are free from usual regional clan corruption relationship. Indeed, it clear for all that it is these very young people who make a nutrient medium for disseminating various radical extremist ideas. It is necessary to provide alternative way for them. And this alternative way should be interconnected with Russia’s federal policies in general. Such opportunities do exist. And if you endorse such meeting, we could submit our suggestions and thoughts on this issue.

 

You know, strange though it may seem, but these very efforts aimed at forming effective and modern youth program for the most complicated region of our country can also move forward youth policies throughout the whole Russia. We must not divide young people into “ours” and “not ours”, expelling some of them into radical marginal area, forcing creative others to leave the country, and making the thirds mercantile and apathetic timeservers. I persisted in this standpoint and I shall do this in future. We must reach every one. In the country, so many problems lie in wait for us, which have become overripe with regards to the youth. If we take into account the aspect of demography, we will see that our young people are so few that it is necessary to fight for every one, to struggle for every one, to reach every one, to gather, to unite young people around attractive ideas of the country’s development. But this is possible only if they have approximately equal start conditions for self realization, so that they could be sure that their skills and professionalism will be asked-for here, in this country, and that they will not be forced to pay for this either by their freedom, or by their convictions. This is the most important thing: not to be a timeserver, not to be servile to power but to assert own convictions. I guess this is a guarantee of successful youth policy.

 

And finalizing my presentation, I would once again come back to the issue we have started with. I mean the modernization of the law enforcement system. Surely, the incident, I would say, the incident, the precedent, or the effect, the syndrome of Dymovsky - call it as you wish, regardless to his personality, regardless to the personality of the major in this particular case – is just another proof of diagnosis for the entire law enforcement system, not only for the militia. And the modernization of the law is impossible without thorough modernization of all law enforcement agencies whose kickbacks have become a kind of norm and whose outrage against citizens has got part of our ordinary life.

 

I consider that any attempts to strengthen currently institutionalized law enforcement agencies are not only doomed but even dangerous, because it is impossible to strengthen a mad by giving him an axe. It is necessary to treat and revitalize him first. The same situation is with the system: before strengthening it, it is necessary to heal and revitalize it. And I reiterate again that within our powers, we are ready to contribute to this process.

 

You know, our supreme authorities have now, perhaps, a rare opportunity – since the times of “perestroika” – to reform totally this sphere, being backed by people’s enormous support. Indeed, we have not witnessed such unanimity of the society. So, there is a unique opportunity for reforming entire law enforcement system, primarily the militia, of course. It is an opportunity to express solidarity with people’s hopes.

 

That is why the issue of civic participation, interaction and civil control is so acute today. And the modernization in general – as you, Dmitry Anatoljevich, said at the beginning of you presentation – is impossible, of course, without freedom and fundamental democratic grounds. Therefore first of all, we must develop key democratic institutes, surely. We must value our past, but it is an evident deadlock to search in it answers to challenges we face now, to search in it our national idea.

 

We consider that the freedoms of Mass Media, the independent justice, the normal political competition, the normal actual elections are also extremely urgent challenges. You also have dealt with these issues in your Address to Russia’s Federal Assembly. And we fully support you in this, and we shall make our modest efforts in order to achieve this.

 

Medvedev: Thank you, Ella Alexandrovna.

 

Right now we shall continue to discuss the issues you have just mentioned. Well, essentially, you have mentioned nearly all issues that can be discussed today. You know, I cannot but respond to three things you have just said, because they are very serious – or rather two things and a simple finalizing comment.

 

You said in the beginning such a phrase, which is awkward for my perception: “A priest’s murder is sad but it’s from another area”. In my view, no murder can be “from another sphere”. Any murder of a human rights activist, of a journalist, of a priest, of a policeman, of an investigator, of a serviceman, of any other human being has absolutely equal consequences, social consequences for our society. It is the gravest crime. Therefore, after all, I guess we should be extremely accurate in such words. We may not divide crimes into those deserving high attention of public (even if the matter is a murder of a famous personality) and those that do not deserve attention. Otherwise we get into the deadlock you have just talked about.

 

Being a specialist who have been studying law for a considerably long time, I cannot but respond to the other thing as well, which is “senselessness of reference to the court”. Look! We criticize our judiciary. You do this relentlessly and, for sure, in many cases fairly enough. But I absolutely disagree with this thesis, because what can be alternative to appealing to court? Either mob law, you know, we have already experienced many times in the history of our state, or appeals to “the party’s committee”. The both ways stay apart from the main line of civilized development. That is why, after all our probably high scepticism towards certain legal institutes, to the shortcomings in activities of the courts that every one must see, nevertheless, all of us, including citizen rights defenders, who here present, must contribute prestige of the judiciary, even though we realize it is imperfect. Indeed, all other ways lead to a deadlock in civilization.

 

Well, and now about the third thing, which is not an answer to what you have said, but it is rather a comment. I would like to say that all we are talking about today, of course, will be summarized. I’ll personally study your requests. As for a number of the most resonance things, I can say that the work in this respect has been already going on. I can say particularly about the child search centre, the legislation amendments, and some other issues you have mentioned. As for one issue we did discuss during our previous meeting (I mean the veteran status for combatants who fought in conflict with Georgian military forces last August), I have charged the government, indeed. This year is, certainly, uneasy one because of the crisis. However, I would like to inform you that the decision about the equalization will be made. Before coming here, I talked with the government once again. And I ordered them to do this regardless that additional funds could be needed. So, this issue will be closed. And it will be closed in the nearest future, because I remember our discussion.

 

And now, I would say about the Caucasus. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a good idea, perhaps, to devote a meeting of ours for discussing situation in the Caucasus. I guess we could even meet in a wider circle, having invited some colleagues of ours who work directly in the Caucasus, so that they would get an opportunity to describe situation there as well as to tell us about key threads they really see. Of course, we are aware clearly about these threads, but such a meeting would provide an excellent chance to get information from their own lips.

 

Well, thank you for your detailed presentation.