MINELRES: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 75

[MINELRES moderator]

Original sender: Tatyana Bogushevitch <minissues@delfi.lv>


Minority issues in Latvia, No. 75

Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
October 16, 2003

Content
- ECHR: a violation is declared in the case Slivenko v. Latvia
- CoE Human Rights Commissioner's recommendations: who cares?
- The Education Inspection controls activities of minority
schoolchildren
- New body for protection of the state language to be created
- Use or misuse of ethnic factor?
- Naturalisation: more applications last month
- Socialist MP infuriates the Parliament
- Minorities in foreign policy


ECHR: a violation is declared in the case Slivenko v. Latvia
------------------------------------------------------------

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case 
Slivenko v. Latvia on October 10. The Grand Chamber has found a 
violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life and home) of 
the European Convention on Human Rights, but declared that it was not 
necessary to deal separately with the applicants' complaints under 
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). There had been no violation 
of Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security); it was not necessary 
to consider the applicants complaints under Article 5 � 4 (right to 
have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Each of the 
two applicants is to be paid 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary 
damage. Full text of the judgment is available in English and French at 
the website of the European Court of Human Rights 
(http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/default.asp?Language=en&Advanced=1).

We reported about the decision on admissibility in the case (see 
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43, 
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//02052002-09:04:27-1978.html). 
The applicants contested the legality of the deportation carried out by 
Latvia in respect of Tatjana and Karina Slivenko. Tatjana Slivenko had 
been a resident of Latvia before she married Nikolaj Slivenko, Soviet 
military officer, in 1980, while Karina is their daughter born in Latvia 
in 1981 (for more details on the principal facts, see the Press release 
issued by the Registrar of 9 October, 2003, at 
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2003/oct/Slivenkoeng.htm). The Court 
declared admissible the complaints of Tatjana and Karina Slivenko under 
Article 5, Article 8 and Article 14 of the Convention. The applicants 
considered that their rights to liberty and security were violated 
during their detentions in October 1998 and March 1999; their rights to 
respect for their "private life", their "family life" and their "home" 
were violated because of their removal; they were removed from Latvia as 
members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and the family of a 
former Russian military officer and were subjected to different 
treatment than other non-original Latvian residents.

The Court noted that both applicants had developed, since birth, a 
network of personal, social and economic ties constituting a private 
life in Latvia. They also lost the apartment where they had lived. Their 
removal from Latvia therefore constituted an interference with their 
private life and home. Latvian authorities acted on the basis of the 
bilateral treaty between Latvia and Russia. According to this treaty, 
all persons who remained Russian military officers after January 1992, 
as well as members of their families, had to leave Latvia when Russian 
troops were withdrawn in 1994. Special reservation was made in respect 
of those persons who permanently resided in Latvia before their 
conscription to the Soviet army - these persons could stay in Latvia. 
However, this reservation was not extended to the spouses of Russian 
military servicemen who were born in Latvia or permanently resided there 
before marriage, and to their children born in Latvia. The applicants' 
removal could accordingly be considered to have been "in accordance with 
the law".

Taking into account the wider context of the constitutional and 
international law arrangements made after Latvia regained independence, 
the Court accepted that the treaty and implementing measures had sought 
to protect the interests of national security. The continued presence of 
active servicemen of a foreign army might be seen as incompatible with 
the sovereignty of an independent State and a threat to national 
security. The public interest in the removal of them and their families 
would therefore normally outweigh the individual's interest in staying. 
However, removal measures might not always be justified. For example, 
they did not apply to the same extent to retired officers and their 
families.

It appeared - from information provided by the Latvian Government about 
treatment of certain hardship cases - that the authorities considered 
they had some latitude allowing them to ensure respect for private and 
family life and home. Although decisions were taken on a case-by-case 
basis, however, the authorities did not appear to have examined whether 
each person presented a specific danger to national security or public 
order, the public interest having been perceived rather in abstract 
terms. A scheme for withdrawal of foreign troops and their families 
based on a general finding that their removal was necessary for national 
security was not as such incompatible with Article 8, but implementation 
of such a scheme without any possibility of taking into account 
individual circumstances was.

The applicants were integrated into Latvian society at the time and 
could not be regarded as endangering national security because they were 
part of Tatjana's father's family, who had retired in 1986, had remained 
in the country and was not himself considered to present any such 
danger. In all the circumstances, the applicants' removal could not be 
regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society.

As regards the right to liberty and security (Article 5 � 1), the Court 
noted that neither of the arrest warrants lacked a statutory basis in 
domestic law and that there was no evidence that the police had acted in 
bad faith or arbitrarily. The Court found that it was unnecessary to 
examine the merits of the complaint based on Article 5 � 4, as the 
applicants had been released speedily before any judicial review of the 
lawfulness of their detention could take place.

Our commentary

Media commentaries on the case were often politicised. For example, some 
Latvian-language newspapers wrote that the European Court of Human 
Rights recognised that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 
(although the term "occupation" itself is used only by judge Maruste 
from Estonia in his dissenting opinion). In turn, Russian-language press 
informed that ECHR will follow this precedent when dealing with other 
cases concerning deportation of former Russian military officers and 
their families, but the authorities have to guarantee a permanent 
residence permit for the Slivenko family.

In our view, truth is somewhere in the middle. First of all, violation 
is violation, even if only found in respect of one article out of eleven 
alleged. According to the Court, there is no collision between the 
European Convention on Human Rights (ratified by Latvia only in 1997) 
and the LatvianRussian treaty of 1994 per se. However, human rights and 
one of their fundamental principles  the principle of proportionality  
is to be observed in any case. It means that regardless of provisions of 
international treaties each situation is to be analysed by national 
authorities on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the level of 
social integration of concrete persons.

This issue in respect of legislation is not so topical now, as the new 
Immigration Law, in force since May 1, 2003, provides more effective 
mechanism of court appeals in cases concerning possible deportation from 
Latvia.

The authorities themselves have to decide if it is necessary to issue a 
permanent residence permit for the Slivenko family to remedy the 
violation. However, according to Article 46 � 2 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers will supervise 
execution of the judgment and evaluate it.


CoE Human Rights Commissioner's recommendations: who cares?
-----------------------------------------------------------

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Alvaro 
Gil-Robles has visited Latvia in order to monitor the situation with 
human rights in the country. The Commissioner visited Riga, as well as 
the second biggest city of Latvia, Daugavpils, where more than 80% of 
residents belong to the Russian-speaking minorities.

During the visit, the Commissioner expressed his views about the Latvian 
situation. Inter alia, he said, that the lack of citizenship for more 
than 20% of population is a serious problem and Latvia should work on 
solving it. Mr Gil-Robles recommended considering granting non-citizens 
the right to vote in municipal elections, as well as to register as 
citizens all the children of non-citizens, who were born after 1991 (now 
it can be done only if the parents submit an application). He also 
proposed to abolish the naturalization fee.

As regards the education reform 2004, the Commissioner stated, that here 
the main problem is the lack of dialogue between authorities and those 
directly affected by the reform. He also said, that he had heard no 
doubts about the Latvian language being the only state language. Yet, he 
stressed, that Latvia should ratify the Framework Convention for the 
Protection of National Minorities, as well as streamline the legislation 
and political practice in accordance with it. This would also mean 
allowing communication with local authorities in minority languages in 
regions where minorities live in substantial numbers.

Before the Commissioner's meeting with NGOs, schoolchildren and students 
from the Headquarter for the support of Russian schools met him outside 
the building. They were dressed in T-shirts with slogan "Hands off 
Russian schools" and held posters with the same call. The youngsters 
expressed their protest against the reform and explained their position 
to the Commissioner. When the Commissioner had stepped inside the 
building, the police detained some of the young people. After three 
hours of detention (with adult representatives of the Headquarter 
accompanying the youngsters), all were freed. As one of the activists 
commented, "This tells much more about the situation with minority 
rights than a visit to a particular school" (daily "Vesti Segodnya" 
("The News Today"), October 7, 
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/vesti/article.php?id=6472799).

Soon after it Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and 
Public Affairs Ina Druviete declared that Latvia is not legally bound by 
the recommendations of the Commissioner and "will have the opportunity 
to object against them".

Our commentary

What is the most striking about the visit of the Commissioner is its 
reflection in the media. To quote just some titles: "The advice of the 
Human Rights Commissioner are just recommendations; they are not 
obligatory" ("Diena" ("The Day"), October 9); "The Commissioner does not 
threaten but recommends" ("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October 
9), etc. Here is also the comment of the leading Latvian-language daily 
"Diena": "The Commissioner acknowledges: the Council Of Europe can only 
recommend, this means that his visit cannot cause any considerable 
follow-up for Latvia" (October 9). "There are no threats in case if 
Latvia does not follow the Commissioner's recommendations", stresses the 
biggest Latvian-language newspaper "Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper", 
October 8).

One can feel, how the media treat recommendations in the field of human 
rights, how they are ready to promote respect towards human rights and 
political will to observe it :-) .

One more thing that makes us feel anxious about further promotion of 
minority rights in Latvia. Some days ago the President of Latvia had a 
meeting with the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi. 
During this meeting Mr Prodi reportedly declared that Latvia fulfils al 
the criteria in the field of the society integration and the state 
policy is being developed in the right direction. Comparing to 
recommendations of Mr Gil-Robles, it could mean that the European Union 
and the Council of Europe have totally different attitudes towards 
minority related policy of the Republic of Latvia. Double standards to 
be created?


The Education Inspection controls activities of minority schoolchildren
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Education Inspection investigates, how minority schools in Latvia 
use money for informative travels in the framework of realizing the plan 
for implementation of the education reform 2004. Among other things, 
visit of pupils of the Lomonosov Riga Russian School to the President of 
Russia Vladimir Putin and travel of schoolchildren to Strasbourg are to 
be checked ("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October 9). We 
reported about the latter travel in the previous issue of our newsletter 
(see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 74, 
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-October/002974.html).

Representative of the Latvian Human Rights Committee Miroslav Mitrofanov 
has informed that 25 schoolchildren participated in the travel to 
Strasbourg legally, as parents have the right to ask for a free week for 
their children. Only two pupils asked for a paper from the Latvian Human 
Rights Committee about the visit. Deputy Head of the State Education 
Inspection Valda Puise notes, that there is no such provision in the 
legislation. Pupils have 15 days per year for education visits, but they 
are to be connected with education programme. The Riga City Council's 
Department of Education, Youth and Sport Affairs provided information 
that the school itself considers the issues related to unattended 
classes. Director of the Lomonosov Riga Russian School pointed out that 
he was informed about the visit to Moscow; pupils from his school 
attended classes in one of the Moscow schools during the event 
("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), October 10, 
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=6507829).

Our commentary

According to information provided by media, approximately 5000  6000 
children only in Riga do not attend school at all. In our view, this 
issue requires much more attention of the State Education Inspection 
than some short foreign visits of active minority schoolchildren. Sudden 
interest of the Inspection makes one think rather about repressions for 
undesirable civil activities. We would regret, if the freedom of 
expression will be limited using the undisputable necessity to receive 
education. Besides, one should not forget that civil education is as 
significant as the school's one, at least in a democratic society.


New body for protection of the state language to be created
------------------------------------------------------------

The Cabinet of Ministers adopted the Concept on the State Language 
Agency on October 7. The Agency will be a new institution to deal with 
the issues of the state language. One of the most active supporters of 
this decision is Mara Zalite, the Head of the President's Commission on 
the State Language. She believes that it is necessary to have a special 
state language agency in order to develop the Latvian language. 
According to her, "the struggle for the state language will never end" 
("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October 7).

There is already a number of other institutions dealing with the issues 
of protection and development of the state language: the President's 
Commission on the State Language, State Language Centre (language 
inspection within the Ministry of Justice) with its Commission of 
Experts in the Latvian Language, the Institute of the Latvian Language 
at the University of Latvia, Centre of Terminology and Translation and 
Terminology Committee of the Academy of Sciences. Besides, the 
Examination Centre of the Ministry of Education and Science holds the 
examinations necessary for receiving the state language proficiency 
certificates of employees; National Programme for Latvian Language 
Training manages state-supported educational programmes for the state 
language training.

Our commentary

In our view, the Concept on the State Language Agency has made clear 
some problems and contradictions within the field. For instance, there 
is still no clear division of competence between the new agency and 
already existing institutions. This process makes an impression of a 
simple duplication of functions. However, it seems that the tendency is 
obvious  in future the Ministry of Education and Science will be the 
one responsible for the state language policy. The State Language Centre 
of the Ministry of Justice will maintain the functions of language 
inspection only.


Use or misuse of ethnic factor?
-------------------------------

Schoolchildren at the Riga secondary school's No. 63 refuse to visit
classes by Benita Kaprane, teacher of the Latvian language. According to 
them,
Benita Kaprane had insulted them, thus spreading ethnic hatred.

Benita Kaprane notes, that she has pupils of different ethnic background 
in her classes and had never spread ethnic hatred. Pupils from other 
forms say that claimants are too lazy. Natalya Naumetsa, director of the 
school, agrees, noting that pupils had visited only one lesson and then 
came with a claim to change the teacher.

Yelena Matyakubova, chief specialist on minority education at the Riga 
City Council's Department of Education, Youth and Sport Affairs sees 
psychological rather than ethnic reasons for the conflict and notes that 
there was no such precedent in Riga yet. Still as the newspaper "Rigas 
Balss" recalls, there were conflicts between Latvian and 
Russian-speaking teachers in the secondary school No. 95, which resulted 
in the change of the school's director ("Rigas Balss" ("The Voice of 
Riga"), October 6).

Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs 
Ina Druviete considers the event "a provocation of some pupils and their 
families aimed at discrediting the teacher and the Latvian language". 
She thinks that actions against education reform could instigate the 
events. The Committee has decided to forward the teacher's claim to the 
National Human Rights Office ("Rigas Balss" ("The Voice of Riga"), 
October 9).


Naturalisation: more applications last month
--------------------------------------------

According to data provided by the Naturalisation Board, 1,155 persons 
submitted naturalisation applications in September 2003 (compare to 503 
in September 2002). Average number of naturalisation applications in 
2003 was 600-800 per month. Deputy Head of the Naturalisation Board 
Janis Kahanovics believes that the main reason for such growth is that 
the Board held Latvian-language courses free of charge for 
naturalisation applicants. However, a lot of non-citizens, who already 
know the Latvian language, submit their applications. According to Mr 
Kahanovics, for them the reason could be Latvia's EU accession in May 
2004, when the citizens of Latvia will become the citizens of the 
European Union ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), October 14, 
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/telegraf/article.php?id=6531974).


Socialist MP infuriates the Parliament
--------------------------------------

MP Martiyan Bekasov (the Socialist Party), Latvian observer in the 
European Parliament (GUE/UEL group), has infuriated colleagues in the 
natinal parliament when distributing information on minority situation 
in Latvia. Bekasov has written a letter addressed to MEPs, containing 
information on status of minorities in Latvia, number of non-citizens 
and social situation in the country. Bekasov noted that 1/4 of Latvian 
population are non-citizens, informed about 20 differences in rights of 
citizens and non-citizens and difficulties in finding job due to 
unreasonable language proficiency requirements. Main critic against 
Bekasov, nationalistic party "For Fatherland and Freedom"/LNNK, has 
found mistakes in French translation of the letter: for example, name of 
the first President of Latvia written incorrectly. The party suggested 
to appoint another observer in the EP instead of Mr Bekasov. Head of the 
Socialist Party's faction in the Saeima Alexander Golubov described the 
situation as political games in the nationalistic party's usual style 
("Vesti Segodnya" ("The News Today"),
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/index.php ?id=6463237).


Minorities in foreign policy
----------------------------

The Latvian-language newspaper "Lauku Avize" has published an article 
about the conference "Minorities in foreign policy of Latvia", held by 
LATO, organization for support of Latvia's membership in NATO ("The 
Rural Newspaper", October 9).

According to public opinion polls, the biggest part of Russians in 
Latvia do not support joining NATO and the European Union. The influence 
of the Russian-language press was mentioned as one of the major reasons 
of their negative attitude.

There is an opinion that the Russian-language press offers a lot of 
articles about Russia every day, but writes almost nothing about the EU. 
As Mr Raudseps, deputy editor of the Latvian-language newspaper "Diena", 
pointed out, it is the Embassy of Russia, which requires favourable 
attitude from the Russian-language newspapers' editors.

Sergey Kruk, lecturer of the University of Latvia, thinks that the
Russian-
language press writes about politics ironically, but cannot provide 
readers with relevant information. They only publish professional 
articles on economic issues, because Russians take an active part in 
this area. There was also an opinion that Russians feel alienated and 
therefore are striving for attention. Protest actions against the 
education reform were mentioned as examples of it. Mr Kruk offered to 
create an official governmental newspaper in
Russian.

Also other were methods offered. According to one proposal, state 
officials often "flirt with the Russian-language press", which is not 
correct. They should be sterner and maybe even refuse to give an 
interview to journalists from the Russian-language press (!).

---------------
Compiled by:

Tatyana Bogushevitch
Yuri Dubrovsky
Gennady Kotov
Alyona Babitch
Milada Fomina
Milana Fomina
Alexander Kiselyov

-- 
===========================================================
Minority issues in Latvia
Newsletter published by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
Subscription/inquiries: minissues@delfi.lv
Back issues:
http://www.minelres.lv/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia
====================================