Lukin: rupture between poverty and riches - a disturbing signal
In the report is noticed that the policy of the state in the field of maintenance socially - the economic rights of citizens has got in accounting year more accurate, than before, the positive dynamics caused, in particular, by start of some the major national projects (“ Health “ “ Formation “ “ Accessible and comfortable habitation - to citizens of Russia “ “ agriculture Development “) . As a whole, however, the situation with human rights is characterised as unsatisfactory. Why? Vladimir Lukin has told About it in interview.
| That the such happens in 2006, from - for what to a condition of human rights for this period you is exposed “ neud “?
Vladimir Lukin | Anything superordinary, thank God, has not occurred. The same estimation - “ neud “ as you speak - contains and in two previous reports. Why? The simple answer | because in the country where the human rights on normal, worthy life are insufficiently guaranteed, a situation cannot be estimated differently. There is a huge rupture between poverty and riches. Access to free education is narrowed. Affairs with legal protection of citizens not in the best way are. The rights of children, invalids are obviously insufficiently provided. In a word, weight of unresolved problems. Or solved not to the full. That is why the situation in sphere of human rights cannot satisfy.
RG | Why the main problem of the Russian society you named rupture between riches and poverty?
Lukin | Because this blatant injustice is fraught with heavy social cataclysms. If in the same country many people live in poverty unacceptably, and the few is loud, “ glamurno “ are rich, means, in this country it is necessary to change something.
RG | That you suggest to change?
Lukin | the Representative under human rights is not engaged in elimination of social disproportions. This problem should dare the state, all society. But the debt of the representative consists in once again to call in a hand bell and to tell: my friends, at us a situation adverse, let`s it correct. As here certain, meanwhile very modest positive dynamics already was outlined.
RG | you mean national projects?
Lukin | Yes. Someone considers that their realisation yet does not give expected result. But it is all - taki attempt. State attempt to address to the acute problems of the Russian life. If I have called now, immediately to give to everyone the worthy salary, I would be the irresponsible populist. But to tell “ to a city and the world “ that the decision of this problem should be accelerated, I am obliged. In it, actually, the debt of the Representative also consists.
RG | Judging by your report, more often citizens complain of infringement of their social rights. The share of similar complaints in comparison with 2005 has increased by 46,7 percent. About what this tendency speaks? What there is more and more massed approach to the social rights? Or about what citizens began to protect these rights more actively, from here and growth of complaints?
Lukin | you know, this question needs the serious sociological analysis. But, should you tell, the most painful social problems arise not in those countries which in the economic development have reached a bottom, and in what from a bottom rise. Rupture between rich and poor, it in Russia just from it | we have risen from a bottom. In the country there is money what before was not, there are new material possibilities. As a result there are also rich people who by nonsense publicly show the monstrous discrepancy to that way of life which conducts the majority of the population. Also there are as though two countries which do not have among themselves anything general. It is very dangerous. Besides, many citizens cannot understand, why the unknown volume of oil and gas riches of the country affects their well-being very little. People do not see prospects of qualitative improvement of the present position and that is especially disturbing, do not believe that activity of machinery of state at various levels is directed on their maintenance socially - the economic and political rights. As a result rupture between the poor and rich is easily transformed to people credibility gap to the power.
RG | you notice in the report that the number of the complaints connected with disposal of legal proceeding in courts has increased by 23 percent. How, from the point of view of the Representative under human rights, the Russian judicial system today looks?
Lukin | It looks is much more modern, than, say, fifteen years ago. Nevertheless reform has been spent. Independence of judges has been proclaimed. Attempts to fill this independence have been made by any maintenance. Institutes which was not | juries, world judges earlier have been entered... All is steps to a right direction. But that our state became legal in full sense, are necessary not only new judicial structures. It is necessary also to overcome a certain sort of tradition. For example, an accusatory bias of justice. What do we see now? With 2001 for 2005 the number of people by which verdicts of guilty were taken out and which have gone to prison, gradually decreased. And now has again increased. And has increased at all only at the expense of murderers, robbers, other experienced criminals. With them all is clear, to it a place only behind a lattice. But there is a large quantity of the people making much less grave crimes. Having got to prison subculture, they become its part. After all on a zone there are the “ universities “. In a sense they are much more effective, than the declared official system of re-education in the Russian prisons. And now look, as for small crimes punish in the West. Here the well-known supermodel Naomi Kempbel has a little engaged in hooliganism concerning the servant - the court has immediately sentenced it to five days of public works. And it, having put on an apron, potopala to wash floors in municipal premises of New York. Next time will reflect before to brawl. Here is how in the civilised world these problems are solved. And we have a constant reproduction of criminal subculture.
RG | Why you never interfere with actions of proceeding with political underlying reason. You consider, we do not have such affairs?
Lukin | I at all so do not consider. But I simply have not the right to interfere with actions of proceeding and judgements. According to the law, “ Upolnomo - chennyj has the right to receive explanations of officials and civil servants, excepting judges, on the questions which are subject to finding-out during consideration of complaints “. Excepting judges! Therefore as I can interfere? To restore legality by infringement of the law it it is wrong. The only thing that here is allowed to me, - to react to the complaint, that during proceeding remedial infringements have been admitted. Then I can direct this business to higher judicial bodies that they have become interested in it.
RG | you had to do it?
Lukin | Yes, and time and again. Because, despite progress elements, our judicial system as a whole leaves much to be desired. It is difficult to name it system, in full degree protecting the rights of citizens. Our officials all time razdrazheny that Russians complain in the European courts, the stream of complaints there grows. There is nothing to be irritated. Improve judicial system in the country. Make so that the quantity of sentences in favour of citizens was at least approximately same as sentences in favour of the state, and the number of sentences in favour of poor was in relative balance with sentences in favour of the rich. The best way not to bring matters to the European court under human rights in Strasbourg - to accept here, to Russia, such decisions which discourage to search justice outside of our country. Strasbourg - sky court it will not be simple to accept complaints from the Russian citizens if will see that these complaints are unreasonable.
RG | And complaints to infringement of the political rights? What do you think of toughening of rules of carrying out of mass actions - pickets, meetings, demonstrations?
Lukin | I treat badly it. Because I wish all good state. If the state here is overzealous, will narrow a platform for normal, i.e. Free and legal expression of political views, it only will strengthen in someone extremist temptations. The certain way to court a trouble is to be afraid of it and it to frighten. It is necessary to allow to people to express, declare the requirements. The notifying principle of carrying out of mass actions is registered in the law. The authorities under the law have not the right to resolve or forbid demonstration, meeting, picket. But contrary to the law of the power that resolve, forbid similar actions. The authorities, of course, should aspire to agree with organizers of demonstration that procession on a city did not disturb to movement that the rights of other citizens thus were not struck. But to resolve or forbid any street action - means to break the law. Certainly, it does not concern those who intends to resort to violence.
RG | That is the authorities should show impartiality? They should concern equally and to “ to Russian march “ and to “ To march not consent “?
Lukin | If there are serious suspicions that planned demonstration will pour out in ethnic animosity kindling, there is an uneasy collision, and, for example, the Moscow authorities with it have more than once faced. To forbid the same “ Russian march “ they cannot. The suspicion suspicion, but exists an innocence presumption. But there is also an extremism threat. What to do? I think, would be the big error to enter rigid preventive measures, having upheld present definition of extremism. It is the extremely indistinct, leaves open space for wide, any interpretation. Bureaucracy the lever with which help she can forbid in general everything also yields, what not by it is initiated. And any interdiction such is capable to warm up only radical moods and, eventually, to provoke someone to extremist actions. No doubt, the state and a society should counteract extremism. But let`s accurately define at first that such extremism. Also that such aggressive xenophobia.
RG | Since April, 1st the interdiction to foreigners has come into force to be engaged in Russia in retail trade...
Lukin | I consider that stimulation of our manufacturers should be basically positive. It is necessary to try to stimulate with plus, instead of with a minus. Interdictions you will achieve nothing. Well will employ and will put for a counter for the sake of appearance people with the Russian passport, yes thus also the prices will rise. That`s all. It is characteristic that the Moscow authorities with a pragmatism inherent in them already soften such order. And not because they nepatriotichny that is why that see | to what good for the rather poor consumer it does not conduct.
RG | you proposed to declare amnesty to illegal migrants. This offer has found understanding and support in the government?
Lukin | To a certain extent - yes. The federal migratory service understands that it is the only thing to do. Illegal migrants in Russia, by different estimations, from 5 to 10 million. We can begin, of course, mass campaign for eviction of these people. But the full collapse in those branches of economy where visitors from the countries of Transcaucasia today work, Central Asia because our indigenous population does not go to these branches will be result. So, I am convinced, it is necessary to legalise migrants. It is especially necessary if to take into consideration also a difficult demographic situation in the country.
RG | And your offer on protection of human rights in army by creation of the military police independent of the Ministry of Defence, it as is apprehended?
Lukin | On - to mine, without the big enthusiasm. Here when Upolnomo - chennyj under human rights suggests to restore a guardroom, it willingly is accepted. And when he says that the military police, not the subordinate is necessary to this dear department, on it reaction languid. Does not meet supports and my offer to raise military age till 20 years or to 21 years as to trust 18 - to the summer guy difficult military technology extremely dangerously. But basically we co-operate with the Ministry of Defence. Within the limits of the memorandum which has been signed by us. We will tell, recently I went in railway armies, looked, how there from the point of view of human rights is served as soldiers and officers. There were our representatives and in Sevasto - a field on the basis of the Black Sea fleet. The trip to Kaliningrad is planned.
RG | As you estimate work of regional Representatives under human rights?
Lukin | On - to a miscellaneous. But that the institute of regional Representatives is available for us is good already. The country after all big also it is impossible with that small device and modest resources which the federal ombudsman has, an all-seeing eye to observe that occurs in each of regions. Now the number of regional Upolnomo - chennyh has come nearer to 37. It approximately on ten more than was, when I have taken up in a post. Regional Upolnomo - chennye are selected local authorities, and it is correct. And that they too depend on local authorities is wrong. Such dependence at times prevents to raise the question seriously and impartially to the Representative and something to achieve. Happens, I come where - that, and the local any Representative on an ear speaks to me | “ you tell to my heads that it would be necessary to make that - that and that - that. I, understand my position, I can not show persistence “. It should be changed. It seems to me, the regional Representative should have an exit on federal level. I consider that appointment and dismissal of regional Upolnomo - chennyh by a principle “ a double key “ does their work of the most effective.
RG | And human rights in the Chechen Republic? There when - that in view of chrezvychajnosti situations their observance was watched by the special representative of the Russian president. Then this post have abolished.
Lukin | In the Chechen Republic now works the republican Is authorised - nyj - Nurdi Nuhadzhiev. Works actively. Problems there the sharp. And in the Chechen Republic as anywhere, It is authorised - nomu to take important of a position independent and objective. It should react similarly and to infringements from the federal authorities, and on infringements from the authorities local. Though, happens, the federal authorities it is easier ljagnut as you depend on the authorities regional more. I in this case any more only speak about the Chechen Republic.
RG | But if the Representative starts to clash with the authorities in present conditions it not only will protect nobody, but he will need continually protection.
Lukin | I do not say that it is necessary to clash by all means. Hardly it can be end in itself. Here there are two extreme measures. Or Upol - nomochennyj heroically throws down a challenge to the authorities, or in all assents to them. Both that and another is inefficient. In the first case between it and the authorities there will be a bureaucratic pillow in which, how many bang, to sense will not achieve. In the second case it simply will cease to correspond to the official And to public mission.
RG | Means, the Representative under human rights is only the intermediary between a society and the power?
Lukin | Yes, it can be and the intermediary. But I would tell more precisely: it should be the lawyer of a society.
RG | And Council at the president of the Russian Federation on assistance to development of institutes of a civil society and human rights such lawyer is not? Than functions of this council differ from functions of the Representative and whether there is no here a duplication?
Lukin | the Council headed by Ella Pamfilovoj, is not independent body. He as it is clear from its name, advises to the head of the state. And, on - to mine, basically these councils - on business. As to duplication of functions it is not present. Also was. I consider that the structures protecting human rights, especially in Russia, cannot be too much. Them can be only a little. The it is more than them, the better.
RG | As there is your cooperation with the Russian legal experts who do not have of the state status, for example, with the centre “ the Memorial “ the Moscow Helsinki group?
Lukin | Normally develops. These are dear and authoritative human rights organisations. Their visible figures are presented in Advisory council at Upolno - mochennom. When there is any problem, we gather, they make the offers. We agree with something, with something we argue, but in general well and actively we work, we help each other.
RG | your report is impartial enough. Within the last year you had to clash with the power in any occasion?
Lukin | I, under the law, cannot clash with the power. Because the Representative does not politicise. The opponirovanie authorities or even conflicts to it is a prerogative of politicians, political opposition, political parties. The representative is not engaged in it. At it other problem - that the political opposition, according to the Constitution, normally existed and had possibility to oppose the power. After all opponirovanie is too form of co-operation. However, not always and not all authorities understand it. And still. Unlike Sherlock Holmes who was the great master of a deductive method, at the state legal expert a method inductive. It proceeds from a concrete situation. When such situations here and there repeat, get character of a tendency then it is possible to afford certain generalisations. That I also tried to make in the report.
RG | your meetings with the president are how much regular and under whose initiative they occur?
Lukin | I would not name these meetings regular. Nevertheless they have regular character. Has developed so that we meet the president in Day of protection of human rights - on December, 10th each year. And also when I hand over to the president the annual report. By the way, when we met in December of the past year, the president has told | “ Vladimir Petrovich, we meet almost every month “. I have answered it with an English phrase (he understands English): “ It is too good, that was truth “.
RG | the International human rights organisation Fredoom House has exposed Russia is minimum low point for freedom level. On a condition of political freedoms our country is put in one number with Angola, Gabon, Pakistan. On level of freedom civil - in the neighbourhood with Cuba, Libya and the North Korea. In what measure you divide these estimations?
Lukin | in any. I consider that these our critics, to put it mildly, have got excited. To me the well-known phrase of Erazma Rotterdam is remembered: “ Ignorance is yet argument “. Yes, Russia not the ideal country in the field of protection of the rights of citizens to what testifies, in particular, and my report. But to say that Russia in this sense a little than differs from the North Korea, is means or nezasluzhenno to offend Russia, or to pay too big compliment to Northern Korea. Russia possesses wider spectrum of freedom, than the North Korea, and not only it. These freedom in modern Russia much more, than was in the late Soviet state, not to mention early. I would offer dear organisation Fredoom House such experiment. To compose the critical report on a condition of human rights in Russia and Northern Korea. And to be passed with this report on both countries. I can guarantee to our colleagues that from Russia they will return whole and safe. And then let will go to the North Korea, and we will look, than business will end.