UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN
Chechnya
An analysis of human rights violations and related
intervention of international organizations, from 1994 until
today
Parisi, Fabio s1746383
6/9/2016
Public Administration
Crisis and Security Management M.Sc.
Master Thesis: Capstone terrorism in the North Caucasus
First Reader: Dr. Marcel de Haas
II Contents List of Abbreviations ... IV List of Figures ... V List of Tables ... VI 1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research question, sub-research questions and objectives of the research ... 4
1.2 Link with public administration and crisis and security management ... 5
1.3 Theoretical Framework ... 6
1.4 Methodology ... 9
2. Legal Framework ... 11
2.1 Introduction to international law ... 11
2.2 International humanitarian law and international human rights law ... 15
3. An analysis of human rights violations in Chechnya from 1994 until today ... 18
3.1 The First Chechen War (1994 – 1996) ... 18
3.2 The Second Chechen War (1999 – 2009) ... 25
3.2.1 Ramzan Kadyrov ... 30
3.2.2 Human rights violations in Chechnya from the 1999 to today ... 33
3.3 Assessments ... 42
4. International organizations and human rights protection in Chechnya ... 45
4.1 The European Court of Human Rights v. Russia: the role of the Court in holding perpetrators accountable for human rights violations ... 46
4.1.1 Russia and the ECtHR ... 46
4.1.2 The ECtHR: judgments and their common problems in implementation in Russia 50 4.1.3 ECtHR v. Russia: Three cases of human rights violations in Chechnya ... 54
4.1.4 Assessments ... 60
III
4.2.1 IGO’s actions against human rights violations in Chechnya, the ECHO and the EU Council 66
4.2.2 The OSCE in Chechnya ... 69
4.2.3 Human Rights Watch ... 71
4.2.4 Assessments ... 79
5. Conclusion ... 81
6. Discussion ... 85
IV List of Abbreviations
CIL – Customary International Law
CPT - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
ECCHR – European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights ECHR – European Convention of Human Rights
ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights EU – European Union
HRW – Human Rights Watch
ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICRC – International Committee of the Red Cross
IGO – intergovernmental organization IHL – International humanitarian law IHRL – International human rights law IR – international relations
MSF – Médecins Sans Frontières
NCDF – North Caucasus Federal District NGO – non-governmental organization
OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe PAC – (EU) Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
PACE – Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe R2P – responsibility to protect
UN – United Nations
UNCHR – United Nations Commission on Human Rights
UNICEF – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund WWII – World War Two
V List of Figures
Figure 1: numbers of disappearances in Chechnya between 2002 and 2009. ... 29 Figure 2: Division of Humanitarian Aid provided by the EU in Chechnya between 1999 and 2009 (European Commission Humanitarian Aid, 2011, p. 7) ... 67
VI List of Tables
Table 1: Human rights violations in Chechnya from 1999 – 2013. ... 39 Table 2: Three cases of human rights violations in Chechnya judged by the ECtHR v. Russia between 2005 and 2013. ... 63 Table 3: Reports produced by HRW concerning human rights violations in Chechnya between 1995 and 2016. ... 76
1 1. Introduction
Chechnya is a republic in the south of Russia, in the North Caucasus region. It is situated in the northern part of the Caucasus region that lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Politically, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation and has its own administrative representation, the North Caucasus Federal District (NCFD). The NCFD consists of Stavropol Krai and the republics Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. The neighboring republics Krasnodar Krai and Adygea though not belonging to the NCFD, are considered to be part of the wider North Caucasus region (International Crisis Group, 2012a, p. 3).
During the last twenty-five years, the North Caucasus has been characterized by a high level of political and economic instability which led to extreme violence and radicalization. Insurgence in Chechnya was initial point of conflict between the republic and the Russian government and the two Russo-Chechen wars of the 1990s induced the spreading of conflict also to neighboring republics. The reasons for violent outburst in the North Caucasus during the last twenty years are diverse. In fact, if during the 1980s and 1990s the main reason for unrest in the region (and particularly in Chechnya) was related to ethnic claims led by national independence movements, since the 2000s most of the violence has been characterized by religious and socio-economic factors (such as poverty, lack of social institutions and lack of justice) (International Crisis Group, 2012b, pp. 4 – 5).
The First Chechen Conflict has been the main event causing unrest in the whole North Caucasus region. In 1994, Russian troops invaded Chechnya in order to re-establish the authority of the Russian government over the Republic of Chechnya. The main reason leading to the intervention of the Russian army was the Chechen claim for independency put forward by the newly-elected president Dzokhar Dudayev in 1991. During this year, he refused to sign the new Treaty of the Russian Federation1 and instead established the (from Russia independent) Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (Brouwers, 2007, p. 2). The subsequent violent conflict between the Russian government and the Chechen republic due to disagreement of the status of Chechnya lasted almost two years, from 1994 to 1996. During this time, around 50.000 civilians were killed and several hundred thousand displaced. Moreover, it was estimated that almost 80% of the Chechen economy was destroyed during the conflict (International Crisis Group, 2012a, pp. 9 – 10). After the conflict, between 1997 and 1999,
1
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Federation emerged as successor state of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Federation Treaty of the Russian Federation of 1992 institutionalized the new structure of Russia and redefined relations with the center and the regions (Smith, 1999, p. 63).
2
Chechnya was characterized by a high degree of violence and instability that followed the regional elections held in 1997. Aslan Maskhadov – leader of the separatist movement – was elected president of the Republic of Chechnya. The complexity of the situation led to a further deterioration of the relationship between the republic and the Russian government which in 1999 decided to again intervene militarily in the area. This second military intervention started the Second Chechen Conflict which developed to be major factor influencing and characterizing destabilization of the entire North Caucasus region (Brouwers, 2007, p. 2). The Second Chechen Conflict commenced in 1999 but there is no general consensus about the ending of the conflict as the official ant-terror operation only ended in 2009, while then President Putin declared the conflict’s end in 2002 (Foxall, 2014). Between 1999 and 2004, almost 40.000 civilians died, hundreds of thousands were wounded, over 270.000 fled to neighboring regions and around 100.000 Chechens fled to the European Union (European Commission Humanitarian Aid, 2011, p. 2).
During both Chechen wars, massive violations of international humanitarian law (IHL)2 and international human rights law (IHRL)3 took place. Those violations have been documented by many official reports released by several different organizations (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, different committees of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Médicins Sans Frontières) (Faurby, 2002, pp. 104 – 105). Both sides – the Russian forces and the Chechen rebels – were responsible for the committing of human rights violations, however, those committed by the Russian army concerned larger numbers and were the most serious (Faurby, 2002, p. 106). One international court (the European Court of Human Rights, ECtHR) and several national courts4 have ruled over the violations of Russian authorities during both wars. These courts decided that the Russian army conducted illegal activities violating fundamental human rights that are protected by international agreements ratified by Russia (Faurby, 2002, p. 110). The most important court that ruled against Russia for several cases of human rights violations is the ECtHR. Moreover, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) – an independent non-governmental organization (NGO) – reported crimes to the abovementioned courts committed by Russian authorities in the region while also legally
2
IHL is defined as the body of international law that protects human rights during wartime (Faurby, 2002, p. 104)
3
IHRL is defined as the body of international law formed by conventions and declarations, most of which have become customary international law, aiming at protecting human rights during peacetime (Faurby, 2002, p. 104)
4
For example the Austrian court in a case of a murder of a Chechen living in exile in Austria. (ECCHR Trial Summaries, n.d.).
3
representing Chechen applicants in front of the ECtHR. The most serious violations that have been repeatedly committed in the Republic of Chechnya include: murder, enforced disappearance, torture, inhuman treatment of victims’ relatives, and illegal destruction of property (HRW, 2007a, p. 4) together with crimes against humanity, war crimes in non-international armed conflict and accusation of genocide (Faurby, 2002, p. 109). The same types of crime have been reportedly committed also in other parts of the North Caucasus and most of them are still being perpetrated nowadays (Amnesty International, 2009).
Since the Second Chechen Conflict, one of the most important figures involved in the crimes committed by Russian authorities in Chechnya is Ramzan Kadyrov. In fact, since the beginning of 2001 – when Russia launched a so-called “Chechenization”5 policy – he has been in command of the local Chechen forces loyal to Moscow and he and his personal militia – named “Kadyrovsty” – have been frequently involved in serious human right violations (HRW, 2007a, p. 2). Since 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov is President of Chechnya and (since then) he has been investigated by the ECtHR for committing very serious crimes, for instance mandating the killing of a Chechen (Umar Israilov) in 2010 for having fled the country (ECCHR Trial Summaries, n.d.). Also, he was accused for being the perpetrator of torture practices during the Second Chechen War (ECCHR Background Paper (a), n.d.).
During the last twenty years, the situation in Chechnya and the North Caucasus has presented dramatic living conditions for the population, including extreme poverty, limited access to medical supply and low education levels. For this reason, many international organizations have intervened with different aims all addressing the improvement of living standards. Among them, the most important intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and NGOs active in the region are: the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF), and Human Rights Watch (HRW). Those organizations aim at fulfilling two tasks in the region: first, providing humanitarian aid in different forms such as providing shelter, food, water supplies, and better education (European Commission Humanitarian Aid, 2011; UNICEF, 2007), and second, providing justice for the people living in Chechnya (and the other North Caucasus republics). The latter is done via exerting political pressure in order to safeguard the enforcement of an effective rule of law, while also trying to prevent the
5
The term ‘Chechenization’ refers to the policy initiated by the Russian government in 2001 that aimed at the transfer of government functions and responsibility of managing the crisis in Chechnya from Russian authorities to Moscow-loyal (pro-Russian) Chechen authorities (International Relations and Security Network, 2008).
4
commitment of further human rights abuses (HRW, 2007a, pp. 14 – 15). However, it is important to notice that Russian authorities have obstructed the intervention of international organizations in the region (Zisk, 2000, pp. 1 – 2; HRW, 2007a, pp. 14 – 15).
1.1 Research question, sub-research questions and objectives of the research
Has the interplay of international law and intervention by international organizations in Chechnya been effective in influencing the Russian policy towards the republic, and in preventing the commitment of further human rights violations?
These sub-research questions support the main research question:
What types of human rights violations were committed in Chechnya and did they change over time?
Has international law been effective in granting the protection of human rights in Chechnya?
Has the European Court of Human Rights been effective in protecting human rights in Chechnya?
Have external actors been effective in finding other ways for protecting human rights in Chechnya?
The main objective of this research is to analyze international action-taking in a local crisis within a sovereign state. For this, the case of Chechnya has been chosen because this republic is one of the deadliest regions in the world and one of the places in Europe where the most human rights violations took place during the last twenty years. To begin with, the human rights violations committed by the Russian forces and authorities in the Chechen republic will be analyzed. The period concerned stretches from the First Chechen Conflict (1994 – 1996) until today and includes a review of the history of the republic from the beginning of the 1990s until today, emphasizing the human rights violations that were committed. The different types of human rights violations and their changing nature will be depicted to then look at the role international law played in protecting human rights. More specifically, the judgments of the ECtHR that ruled over the cases concerning human rights abuses in Chechnya will be examined. The analysis will address the period in which fundamental human rights have been violated, the dates when court procedures began, the dates when the final judgments were made, and the question whether ultimately, the judgements were effectively enforced, meaning that whether or not the Russian (or Chechen) authorities for instance accepted and recognized the judgments and acted accordingly. To assess the
5
effectiveness of international law, the outcome of judgements will be contrasted with the actual enforcement of each sanction that was decided on in the judgments (for instance punitive fines, public recognition of crimes, or custodial sentence). Important is to find out, whether international law has been effective in holding someone accountable for the crimes in Chechnya. Finally, other ways for protecting human rights in a context where national authorities (i.e. Russian and Chechen authorities) are not interested in granting their protection will be assessed. International actors (such as EU institutions, the OSCE and Human Rights Watch) in general play an important role in applying political pressure on countries unwilling or unable to grant basic human rights to their citizens; in case of Chechnya, these actors will be filtered out to see how and to what ends they were able to pressure the Russian and Chechen governments to implement the necessary legal mechanisms to prevent the commitment of human rights violations and to hold the perpetrators of these crimes accountable. Official statements of these organizations and political and economic measures introduced to either pressure those responsible for human rights abuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing and recompense for it, or to create better living conditions for the Chechen population will be scrutinized.
1.2 Link with public administration and crisis and security management
The topic has academic relevance in the field of Crisis and Security Management since it investigates the link between human rights violations and how these trigger the intervention of international organizations in a local context (Chechnya), transferring the responsibility for crisis mitigation from local to global. In the Chechen context, many international actors have intervened and thus paralleled Russian crisis management. International organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) directly engaged in Chechnya via providing humanitarian aid, or exerting political pressure on the Russian government in order to force it to manage the crisis differently (more ‘human’). Moreover, the ECtHR with its rulings over human rights violations directly impacted domestic legal processes, imposing the reopening of investigations and imposing Russian authorities to pay Chechen applicants with pecuniary damages.
This research topic is linked to the field of public administration since it investigates the dynamics between international actors and a nation state and the governance of their interaction. In particular, this thesis investigates the condition under which international intervention is justified and specifically applicable: for instance in case of violations of fundamental human rights. This is the case in Chechnya. Moreover, this example offers an
6
interesting perspective on the governance of a crisis, particularly considering that both the Russian government and international actors are taking part in the crisis management process in the North Caucasus. However, the approach of those external entities is often radically different to the domestic approach, and often the national government tries to thwart the intervention of international actors in its affairs. The case of Chechnya is of particular interest because it shows how although international law allows for the intervention of external actors in a local context, political reality may prevent its effective application. From a societal point of view, the topic is relevant since the protection of human rights and the prevention of their violation is one of the most essential elements in order to grant a secure society, and it is evident that a lack of security in Chechnya is still present. More specifically, this context is of particular interest since it leads us to the question: how can human rights be ensured to a population that cannot expect security from its own government?
This question underlines the importance of an effective intervention from international actors in order to provide better living conditions for the Chechen population (international courts and international organizations should grant a higher level of protection of fundamental human rights while also improving socio-economic standards for the inhabitants of the region). However, it is still not clear how international action-taking can be successful in ensuring human rights while the national government might not be willing to cooperate. This problem will be illustrated in the following also to find potential solutions.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
For the study of international intervention in intrastate conflicts, the question of why, how and under which circumstances the international community may and should act to the benefit of another country’s citizens has to be understood and put in a theoretical context. The recent emergence of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P), a concept generally accepted and developed by the international community, is theoretical framework for this thesis, as well as the associated concepts ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and ‘peacekeeping operations’. R2P is a recent development in the field of international relations (IR) theory and an elaboration of its efficacy in preventing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in a specific case (Chechnya), is an important addition to the body of knowledge of IR. This concept has been central to international political debate since the end of the 1990s, when the nature of armed conflicts changed fundamentally. The massacre of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Rwandan genocide of the mid-1990s showed the failure of the international community in preventing or halting massive human rights violations. R2P as a
7
concept and general principle of action has been officially elaborated at the UN World Summit in 2005, where more than 150 heads of state and government signed the World Summit Outcome Document in which R2P was acknowledged normative obligation of each country (An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect, n.d.). R2P basically states that each country has the responsibility to protect its citizens and guarantee the adherence to fundamental human rights – thus, when a country is not able or willing to protect its citizens it is the task of the international community to intervene and restore the adherence and securing of those rights. R2P nowadays is the fundamental doctrine for political confrontations that imply the intervention of external actors in domestic affairs. As a consequence, the main concepts linked to this theory are, as mentioned above, ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and ‘peacekeeping operations’. These two concepts are part of liberal theory and in particular liberal peace theory as elaborated by David Chandler (2004). He assumes that “international peace and individual rights are best advanced through cosmopolitan frameworks whereby democratic and peaceful states take a leading responsibility for ensuring the interests of common humanity” (Chandler, 2004, p. 60).
In fact, the idea of universal collective responsibility is inherent to the liberalist school of thought, and R2P subsumes under this principle. International actors – such as IGOs and NGOs – have, according to the R2P, the obligation to intervene when fundamental human rights are violated. The main objectives behind the idea of R2P are: preventing genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This is legitimized through international treaties (e.g. the UN Charter) that allow the intervention of external actors in domestic affairs under specific conditions. Furthermore, the UN Security Council is in charge of deciding when a state does not fulfill its obligation to guarantee fundamental human rights to its citizens and hence requires international involvement (Adams, 2015, pp. 10 - 11).
A definition of Responsibility to Protect is provided by Alex J. Bellamy (2010). He defines R2P as a principle based on three pillars:
“(1) [it is] the primary responsibility of states to protect their own populations from the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as well as from their incitement; (2) [it is] the international community’s responsibility to assist a state to fulfill its RtoP; and (3) [it is] the international community’s responsibility to take timely and decisive action, in accordance with the UN Charter, in cases where the state has manifestly failed to protect its population from one or more of the four crimes” (Bellamy, 2010, p 143).
8
Moreover, in 2011 Bellamy further formulated in his book “Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect: From Words to Deeds” R2P as “a normative breakthrough that lays down foundations for a new international politics of mass atrocities which prioritizes their prevention and – failing that – the protection of vulnerable populations“ (Bellamy, 2011, p. 6). This definition is basis for this thesis since it takes into account both the preventive and the protective nature of R2P. In case of Chechnya, fundamental human rights have been violated at least since the beginning of the First Chechen War in 1994 and continue to be violated. All four types of crimes defined to be reason enough for international intervention (genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity) took place in Chechnya and thus, international action-taking is justified and indeed necessitated.
Finally, in this thesis especially the two Chechen wars are of importance as these were the periods in which most violations of human rights took place. Therefore, the concept of ‘civil war’ has to be specified to determine starting and ending point of the two wars and to depict what makes them civil wars. This is essential as in the Chechen case, different definitions circulate especially as regards the ending of conflict in the Second Chechen Conflict (opinions vary between 2002 and 2009). For the purpose of this research, the theoretical framework regarding the definition of a civil war provided by Nicholas Sambanis will be used. In 2004, Sambanis developed a theory that defined the main elements constituting a civil war. According to him, a civil war for being defined as such must fulfill five different criteria: political, territorial, governmental, organizational and mutual damage. Firstly, there have to be two or more distinguishable political and military parties that are well organized, have publicly stated their objectives and are opponent of each other. Secondly, the war has to take place within a defined territory of a state that is recognized as such by the international system with a population of 500.000 or greater. Thirdly, the state’s government – and its army – must be one of the parties of the fight. Fourth, the main insurgent organization must be locally represented and must recruit within the population they represent. Fifth, the year considered to be the starting year of the war is the first year during which the conflict causes at least 500 deaths. During its duration period, the conflict must be characterized by high level of violation. The year in which the war is considered to be concluded is when there is a period of 3 consecutive years during which the conflict causes less than 500 deaths. Finally, the weaker party must deploy an effective resistance, meaning that it has to be able to inflict at least 100 deaths on the stronger party (Tsatsos, 2014, p. 5).
9 1.4 Methodology
The methodology applied in this research is qualitative: a quantitative inquiry has been considered infeasible as data collection for conducting such a research requires for instance the survey of a large share of the population or comparable case studies which would exceed the scope of this thesis. More specifically, a holistic single-case design will be used: the context of the research is Chechnya and the case is the conflicts and the insurgencies occurring in the republic since 1994 (the First Chechen War) until today. In order to avoid data overload, only the most relevant events during the period of time concerned will be analyzed. For this reason, the periods analyzed will be: 1995 – 1996 (First Chechen War), 1999 – 2002 (first phase of the Second Chechen War), 2002 – 2009 (from Moscow’s Chechenization policy to the end of the Second Chechen war) and 2009 – 2016 (post-conflict phase in Chechnya). The reasons why Chechnya has been selected as the unit of analysis are mainly two. First, because most (officially recognized) human rights violations have been committed in the republic. Although the rest of the North Caucasus region also experienced human rights violations, they are a reflection of the same types of crime as in Chechnya, only in lower scale and general lower level of violence – their analysis would most likely not deliver any deeper insights than the analysis of Chechnya. Interesting in the Chechen case is that the same type of human rights violations have been committed by different actors (Russian authorities and Chechen authorities). Therefore, not only one perpetrator and his context (political background, the country’s/ republic’s socio-economic situation) is important for analysis, but two. Moreover, a high number of judgments of the ECtHR exist regarding human rights violations committed in Chechnya which are available to analyze: the ECtHR alone ruled against Russia in more than 210 cases concerning human rights violations in Chechnya (ECtHR, 2016, p. 11). Concerning international intervention, Chechnya (in comparison to the other North Caucasus republics) received the most aid (financial, humanitarian) from international actors between 1994 and 2008 because of the two extremely violent conflicts.
For the analysis, both an explanatory and an analytical approach will be used. The explanatory approach concerns the engagement with the question whether international action taking may benefit the termination of a crisis, or whether it has the potential to help to make the crisis more “human”, forcing the respective nation state to respect some basic international agreements. However, the analytical approach will be the main approach used along the thesis. In fact, the analysis of Chechnya through the lens of international action
10
taking, analyzing which type of human rights violations have been committed, how the international courts judged them and how these factors influenced the international actions undertaken by external actors will be the core of this research. Another element that will be looked at when assessing the effectiveness of international law and international actors is the one concerning the numbers of violations reported in the region. However, the numbers concerning causalities in Chechnya are mostly estimation. This is a common problem when reporting causalities of wars because of the difficulty in collecting precise numbers concerning combatants and civilians deaths and persons went missing. For this reason, the estimation that will be mentioned along the thesis have to be considered as such: numbers that can be discussed and that are going to be used only as raw and approximate indicators that could show steep increase (or decrease) of human rights violations in the republic.
In order to gather data, I will mainly use desktop research. It will be focused on reports and policy documents released by international organizations and on academic literature on the research field and, finally, I will analyze interviews made by other organizations (mostly HRW) for obtaining some data regarding the perception of the level of security from the perspective of the inhabitants.
11 2. Legal Framework
Before introducing the analysis of the research, a legal framework concerning international law (IL), international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) will be compiled in order to provide the necessary context. This is especially essential for understanding why in Chechnya we not only talk about persistent violations of human rights, but also and more importantly about violations of international law. The first part of the main research question of this thesis – whether international law (in combination with the work of international organizations) has been effective in influencing the human rights violations in Chechnya – addresses international law as a tool of crisis mitigation. To understand its functioning, in the following the development of concept and its set of rules and customs regulating and (theoretically) warranting the protection of human rights on international level will be elaborated. International law finds complements in international humanitarian law and international human rights law which thus will be discussed subsequent to the broader field of international law. Moreover, advantages and disadvantages inherent to the application of these bodies of law will be addressed at the end of the following paragraphs.
2.1 Introduction to international law
International law is defined as the set of “rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of International Organization (IGO) in their international relations with one another and with private individuals, minority groups and transnational companies” (Beckman & Butte, p. 1). This means that any interaction between states and international organizations, and between these somewhat ‘bigger’ entities with smaller and as such weaker groups or individuals is regulated through international law which is a set of rules everyone is obliged to adhere to. That this, in practice, is not always the case is a well-known fact and will be discussed later in this chapter.
The discipline of international law has seen several changes in its rules and customs over the past century. A major change in international law took place with the end of World War II (WWII), when the United Nations (UN) were established as an international organization providing a political forum for all nations. The UN Charter was introduced as the foundational treaty of the organization and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established. The ICJ replaced the former Permanent Court of International Justice which existed between the two World Wars but did not have enough power to prevent WWII. The new UN Charter outlawed
12
war and made peaceful settlements of disputes (inter alia via the ICJ) a requirement and hence, was a major advancement for an effective enforcement of international law (Weeramantry & Burroughs, 2005, pp. 5 – 6). The development of international law in the course of the Cold War experienced important and continuous improvements in the enforcement of its regulations, although these changes were not as significant as the institutionalization of economic and political relations of the post-WWII years. In fact, international law is still largely built on the institutions, treaties and the substantive international law6 established directly after WWII (Kumm, 2004, pp. 912 – 913).
The field of international law is constantly changing and progressing, a development that nowadays mostly concerns three main issues. First, the subjects that are being ruled by international law have significantly broadened. Second, inherent to most of today’s treaties, the power to determine the specific obligations that the states who signed the treaty have to comply with is delegated to a treaty-based body with a quasi-legislative character. Also, more and more Customary International Law (CIL) is flourishing without requiring long and well established practices followed by states, but just as a consequence of statements made by representatives of states in international fora, such as the UN General Assembly. This phenomenon is particularly on the rise in the area of human rights. Lastly, states have less flexibility in the interpretation and enforcement of international law (Kumm, 2004, pp. 913 – 915).
In international law as it exists today (2016), there are several actors, sources, and forms of jurisdiction. International actors are the entities that have international legal personality. With international legal personality we define all the entities or legal persons that can have rights and obligations under international law. The main actors in this system are the states that are contemplated as sovereign and equal. Other meaningful actors in the international arena are IGOs. Generally, individuals are not considered to have international legal personality, since they are mainly conceived as part of the state of which they possess nationality (Beckman & Butte, pp. 1 – 2). The four classical sources of international law are set in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These are: a) international conventions b) international custom c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and d) judicial decisions and the teachings of the most qualified publicists of the various nations as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law
6
‘Substantive’ law is the statutory or written law that regulates the rights and obligations of everyone within its jurisdiction and it defines the crimes and their punishments and the civil rights and their responsibilities (Substantive law, n.d.)
13
(Kennedy, 1987, pp. 1 – 3). International conventions are usually indicated as treaties. The most fundamental principle that regulates them is pacta sunt servanda which means that treaties are binding for the states that signed them. Sometimes treaties, due to their political weigh, can generate new international customs binding all the states and not only those who signed the respective treaty (Beckman & Butte, pp. 3 – 4). International custom (or customary international law, CIL) is evidence of a “[…] general practice accepted as law through a constant and virtually uniform usage among states over a period of time”. Once CIL is formed, it is binding for all states. An example of international custom is the obligation to protect combatants and sick or wounded soldiers during international and non-international armed conflicts (Beckman & Butte, pp. 4 – 5), a principle often disregarded and violated by Russian forces during both the first and the second Chechen conflict.
General principles of law are defined as all the principles of law that are applied by the most important democracies around the world (Schreuer, 2000, p. 7). Lastly, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law are not properly considered sources of law, but are generally applied as subsidiary proves of the existence of a CIL or a general principle of law. In some cases, subsidiary means have been used for determining a new international custom. An example is the UN General Assembly Resolution (GAR) 217A (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)), today signed by all 193 members of the UN (Beckman & Butte, pp. 5 – 6).
Even if a hierarchy of the sources of international law is not mentioned in Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ, it exists in practice. First, the treaties are consulted, followed by the international custom and as ‘last choice’ the general principles of law. Moreover, there are two types of norms that are at the top of the hierarchy. The first type entails so-called peremptory norms. These are norms that have been agreed upon and acknowledged by all the states to be so fundamental that they cannot be derogated in any circumstances. An example of a peremptory norm is the prohibition of genocide (Beckman & Butte, p. 6). The second type of norms consists in the obligation of considering the UN Charter always as a superior source to any other international agreement (UN, 1945, Article 103).
Although the principle of jurisdiction (form of jurisdiction) in international law is strictly linked to the jurisdiction of states – we define it as the power of the state to enforce criminal and regulatory law within its borders – there are specific categories of crimes (such as genocide and war crimes) that are so severe that all states, regardless of nationality of the offender or location of the offence, can be subject of jurisdiction – the so-called ‘universal jurisdiction’ (Beckman & Butte, pp. 7 – 8) which was applied in Chechnya for the crimes
14
related to human rights violations. If a state is responsible for a wrongful act7 committed by one of its organs or by one of its representatives, it has the obligation to interrupt it, to warrant the non-repetition of it, and to provide full reparation and compensation for it8 (Beckman & Butte, p. 11).
The outstanding advantage of the international rule of law as elaborated above is that first, it can contribute to protect individuals and groups of people within a particular state. Second, it contributes to develop the checks and balances system of constitutional democracies; a well-established international legal system has the potential to hinder and to limit illegal abuses of political power. Finally, it enhances the chance that the right of a population to govern itself without inappropriate impositions by other states is respected (Kumm, 2004, pp. 918 – 920).
However, the implementation of international law in real politics, as it exists today, has some undeniable downsides. The international system is still a context in which the states are the main and dominant actors. As a consequence, the application of international rules is often complicated when international obligations do not meet the interest of the states (Schreuer, 2000, pp. 1 – 2). Even the areas of international law that protect individuals or groups of people – such as human rights – are difficult to implement. The legal techniques used for tackling international issues have remained largely unchanged since WWII and these legal tools are still usually controlled by states. As a result, they are conditional upon their consent and are often (ab)used for specific national interests (Schreuer, 2000, pp. 2 – 3).
Another problem arises from the difficulty of creating a uniform legal system: there is not always a coherent interpretation of certain rules inherent to respective international agreements which makes the practice of international law extremely difficult (Schreuer, 2000, pp. 6 – 7). These difficulties in the international lawmaking process explain why customary law plays a more important role in international law than in domestic law. However, CIL as well is ambiguous especially because it is often vague and open to conflicting interpretations (Schreuer, 2000, pp. 6 – 7). Thus, as for instance in Chechnya, Russia has leverage to construe the cases of human rights violations it is accused for in a way that it benefits the perpetrators of the crimes. This will be further elaborated in chapter 3.
7
A wrongful act is defined as an act a) attributable to the state under international law, and b) that constitutes a breach of an international obligation owed by that state to the injured state or the international community (Beckman & Butte, p. 11).
8
Three forms of reparation are admissible under international law: restitution, compensation and satisfaction (Beckman & Butte, pp. 11 – 12).
15
2.2 International humanitarian law and international human rights law
Apart from the general concept of international law, two of its sub-categories are essential legal bases for this thesis: international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). IHL and IHRL are the two realms of international law that protect human rights in peace- and wartime.
During the second half of the 19th century, states agreed for the first time on international rules governing needless sufferance in wartime. Since then, this set of international rules developed according to the evolution in tactics and techniques of armed conflict and their increasing destructive potential (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991, p. 1). IHL has been defined as “the set of rules and principles that limits the use of violence in times of armed conflict”. It has two main objectives: 1) to protect persons who are not engaged in the hostilities, and 2) to limit violence to a minimum needed to achieve the objectives of the conflict (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991, p. 1). Although IHL is also called ‘law of war’, it does not regulate whether a state can or cannot use military force; this is determined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p. 1).
The evolution of IHL followed the developments in the field of human rights. Between April and August 1949, an international diplomatic conference was held in Geneva. Here, four new conventions protecting the sick and wounded on land and sea, war prisoners, and civilian victims set forth minimum rules for internal armed conflict (before, IHL regulated only international armed conflict) (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991, pp. 2 – 3). This is especially important for this thesis which deals with the internal armed conflict in Russia with Chechnya.
Mid-1970s, a new set of rules has been adopted with two Additional Protocols (drafted in 1974 and 1977) to the 1949 Conventions. Protocol I addresses the victims of international conflicts, while Protocol II focuses on the victims of internal conflicts. Moreover, it regulates the conduct of armed forces of a country’s government and dissidents or other organized groups which control part of the country’s territory. Finally, it specifies that internal tensions in form of riots or isolated forms of violence are not considered to be internal armed conflict (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.1). Both the protocols lay down a set of rules that must be respected by all the parties of the conflict. Among other regulations, they impose the distinction between civilians and combatants, they apply special forms of
16
protection for women and children and they set favorable treatment to medical personnel. Furthermore, they set some general standards for human treatment of all persons who are not, or no longer, part to the conflict. Murder, torture, mutilation and corporal punishment are forbidden, and some provisions for the care of the sick and the wounded, the protection of civilians against acts or threats of violence, starvation as a method of combat and forced population displacement are determined illegal (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991, p. 3). For what concerns human rights violations in Chechnya, these two protocols are the legal basis for legal proceedings against Russia in front of the ECtHR. Especially the distinction between civilians and combatants has to large extent been ignored by Russian authorities who repeatedly engaged in bombarding villages and other areas not related to the fighting (Pokalova, 2015, p. 41). Also, threats of violence, torture, murder etc. of persons who are no longer part of the conflict were continuously applied by Russian and Chechen authorities. These violations of the protocols among others serve as legal basis for the ECtHR rulings against Russia/ Chechen authorities which will be elaborated below.
The other area of international law that protects human rights is international human rights law, IHRL. It is defined as “a set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, on the basis of which individuals and groups can expect and/or claim certain behavior or benefits from governments.” (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, p.1). Human rights are considered to be rights inherently entitled to every person as a consequence of being a “human”. Many non-treaty based principles and agreements form the body of IHRL as well as several international agreements that helped to formalize those non-written principles including the UN Convention against Torture (1984) which legitimizes the jurisdiction by a foreign court in cases of torture (universal jurisdiction) (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, p.1). The permission of jurisdiction from another country’s court has been used against Russian authorities in a case where a Chechen emigrated to Austria – Umar Israilov – to find refuge and he was killed by Chechen assassins in Austria; according to the UN Convention, Austrian courts were allowed to judge over the case although the persons involved were all Chechens which would commonly assign responsibility to Russian courts. IHRL is also regulated on a regional level, having the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (1950) (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, p.1) as the most important document as basis from which the ECtHR judged human rights violations concerning Chechen applicants.
17
biggest difference is that IHRL applies in peacetime and IHL applies in wartimes. Moreover, IHL aims at protecting persons who are not or no longer part of hostilities, while IHRL applies to all human beings (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, pp. 1 – 2). Whereas many of the provisions of the IHRL may be suspended during armed conflict9, IHL norms can never be intermitted. In the Chechen case, IHRL is therefore mostly referenced to as a source of violations from 2009 onwards, when the situation in Chechnya was considered primarily peaceful.
Common problems in the implementation of both IHL and IHRL relate to the very nature of their origin. Because IHL applies exclusively in periods of extreme violence with its ambiguous warfare and power relations, its application is always a matter of great difficulty. Moreover, the application of both IHL and IHRL is dependent upon state participation. The states are responsible for their compliance both in wartime and peacetime (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, p. 2; International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p. 2). Finally, universal jurisdiction is not extended to human rights violations in internal armed conflicts; neither a universally valid mechanism for the prosecution of perpetrators in internal armed conflicts nor an individual complaint regime is provided by IHL or the Geneva Convention. Instead, domestic criminal courts are responsible for prosecution and only do so if the respective state is willing to do so (Sperotto, 2007, p. 10). As the analysis will show in chapter 3 of this thesis, this is especially true for the case of prosecution of human rights violators in Chechnya.
9
However the derogation from these human rights must be proportional to the crisis at hand, must not be introduced on a discriminator basis and must not violate other rules of international law. Moreover, particular human rights (such as the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) cannot be derogated (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003, p.1).
18
3. An analysis of human rights violations in Chechnya from 1994 until today
In this chapter, human rights violations committed in Chechnya will be addressed by providing a historical overview of the two wars focusing on these crimes and analyzing perpetrators, the types of violations, and their changes over time. On this basis, the impact of international law on the protection of human rights in Chechnya during the last twenty-two years will be assessed.
The following two sub-research questions are guideline for this chapter:
Which are the types of human rights violations committed in Chechnya and did they change over time?
Has international law been effective in granting the protection of human rights in Chechnya?
In order to analyze these questions, the chapter will be divided into two paragraphs.
The first paragraph will consist of an analysis of the First Chechen War because this is the first phase or moment in which the protection of human rights were in question and the international law violated and the period in which unrest escalated into the first massive human rights violations committed in post-Soviet Chechnya. Then, in the second paragraph, the Second Chechen War and the post-conflict period under the leadership of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov (from 2007 until today) will be scrutinized. This chronological structure should lead to an understanding of how human rights violations have changed in Chechnya in the context of changing political and economic environments in both Russia and Chechnya. In addition, the development of international law regarding the protection of human rights in a local context during the last twenty years will be depicted.
This is particularly important for evaluating whether or not international law can benefit the ending (or ‘humanization’) of a violent intrastate crisis.
3.1 The First Chechen War (1994 – 1996)
This paragraph focuses on the First Chechen War (1994 – 1996). It will discuss the causes leading to the conflict, concomitant causalities and will then focus on the human rights violations occurred during this period.
Two sub-research questions will be partially answered:
What types of human rights violations were committed in Chechnya and did they change over time?
19
Has international law been effective in granting the protection of human rights in Chechnya?
For assessing the above-mentioned questions, types of violations and perpetrators will be scrutinized. Subsequently, the role of international law will be assessed, bearing in mind that in this period (1994-1996), Russia was not yet a signatory state of the ECtHR. Therefore, focus will be on the working of the ICJ10, the only international tribunal that could have enforced international law in Chechnya. Finally, other possibilities for the enforcement of international law in Chechnya during the First Chechen War will be discussed.
The First Chechen war, lasting from 1994 until 1996, is considered to have significantly impacted the fostering of unrest in the entire North Caucasus region and, more particularly, in neighboring Ingushetia and Dagestan (International Crisis Group, 2012a, p. 9). Moreover, it caused international attention due to its brutality and for being the first violent conflict in post-Soviet Russia. For the first time, actors external to the conflict, such as the EU and other IGOs and NGOs, intervened in Chechnya. Since then there has been a constant presence of international actors in the republic. The aim of this intervention was to improve the living condition of the people inhabiting the territory while also providing a higher level of security (Faurby, 2002, p. 111). Interference by international actors was provoked due to the extremely destructive frenzy in Chechnya and because of the increasing number of violations of international law, namely violations of human rights. The justification for international intervention in Chechnya lays on the third pillar of the R2P11. For this reason, the first Chechen war will be used as a starting point for the analysis of human rights violations versus international law/ international action-taking.
The origins of the Russo-Chechen conflict date back to the end of the 18th century, when the Tsarist Empire expanded its control over the Caspian and Black Seas generating the aggregation of many different clans with different religious beliefs devoid of a unified identity in the Caucasian region. These clans – or tapis – became the basic social structure in the region, finding a common identity only as enemies of their vanquishers. This feeling has continued to be present along the centuries and became one of the basic features of the Chechen identity. Moreover, the strive for independence and glorification of weaponry and strength, together with the strict obedience to a strong code of honor often leading to bloody
10
It is important to remember the International Criminal Court (ICC) was not active yet. It will enter in force only in 2002 (International Criminal Court, n.d., p.1)
11
20
vengeances solidified in the Chechen culture. This cultural identity has often been misunderstood by the Soviet and later Russian authorities that used intra-cultural violent outbreaks as evidences of rebellion, insurgencies and terrorist acts (Osorio, 2013, p. 2).
In 1936, under the Soviet Union, Chechnya and Ingushetia were united in the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR). In 1944, Stalin accused the republic of having collaborated with the Nazis and, consequently, he decided to disband the republic and to deport its entire population to Central Asia and Siberia, together with Karachai and Balkar people (ethnic groups also originating from the North Caucasus region). It has been estimated that almost 25% of the 700.000 deportees died along five years of forced deportation. Thirteen years later, in 1957, the Chechen-Ingush ASSR was then re-established (Brouwers, 2007, p. 2). During the Soviet period, Chechens were often portrayed and demonized as thieves and bandits, increasing Chechen resentment against the Soviets. Historical grievances, discrimination and this process of condemnation of the Chechen identity, together with the memory of the deportation have produced a dormant violence that flared until its outbreak in the 1990s (Osorio, 2013, p. 3).
In 1990, Chechnya seceded from Ingushetia, as a consequence of the claim for independence of the two different ethnic groups. In 1991, the Chechens officially and unilaterally declared the independence from the Ingush. However, when in 1992 the secession was made official also by the Russian government, the borders between and around the two newly formed republics were not well defined. This episode fueled the unrest in the region, leading in 1992 to a war over a land dispute between Ingushetia and North Ossetia12, that caused more than 600 deaths (Melvin, 2007, pp. 15 - 16; Hill, Lieven & de Waal, 2005, p. 2). In 1991, in the Chechen part of the then still Chechen-Ingush republic, former Soviet Air Force general Dzhokhar Dudayev was elected president by the Chechen population and, immediately after his election, refused to sign the Treaty of the Russian Federation, declaring the birth of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (Brouwers, 2007, p. 2). As a response, then Russian President Yeltsin decided to deploy military force in the republic, however the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation rejected the decision and troops withdrew after only two days, leaving weaponry and ammunition behind (Pokalova, 2015, pp. 26-27). Between 1991 and 1994 the republic was de facto independent, but it struggled to build a functioning ethnocratic state. Already in 1993 the economic, education and welfare system fainted and more than 90.000 Russians and Russian speakers left. Chechnya became a free economic zone where corruption
12
21
of civic and military circles took over. Since the socioeconomic conditions were terrible, a strong political opposition to Dudayev was formed and it organized mass demonstrations demanding a functioning state and an agreement with Russia. In response, Dudayev dissolved the parliament and closed critical newspapers. At this moment, there was a chance that a wider autonomy of Chechnya could have been negotiated with the Russian government, but instead Dudayev insisted to meet Yeltsin in person for discussing the republic’s status, creating frictions that ended all prospects of finding agreement (International Crisis Group, 2012a, pp. 9 – 10). In December 1993 the election for the Russian Duma13 were held. Nationalist and communist parties prevailed and demanded an aggressive stance toward Chechnya which Yeltsin responded by deciding to lead a “small victorious war” to please the newly elected Duma members (International Crisis Group, 2012a, p. 10). The war began on the 11th of December 1994, officially to restore constitutional order in Chechnya (International Crisis Group, 2012a, p. 9), and to quickly regain control over the republic (Brouwers, 2007, p. 2; Osorio, 2013, p. 4). Unexpectedly, strong Chechen resistance protracted the war which exhausted the Russian forces and culminated in a humiliating defeat of the Russian army (Brouwers, 2007, pp. 1 – 2). The Chechen tactic of guerilla warfare in combination with a series of high profile hostage raids caught the Russian military forces unprepared. The prolonging of war led to a collapse of morale and growing discontent in the Russian public that began to develop resentment against the government. In April 1996, Dudayev was killed in a Russian missile attack which allowed Russian authorities to negotiate a ceasefire agreement. This however lasted only briefly and an end of the war could only be pushed through when Chechen rebels managed to reconquer Grozny in early August 1996. On the 31st of August 1996, a peace agreement between Russian authorities and Chechen leadership was concluded in Khasavyurt (a city in the neighboring Dagestan). The decision about the status of Chechnya, most important factor for initial insurgence, was postponed for another five years (Melvin, 2007, pp. 21 – 22).
The First Chechen War was characterized by a high level of violence and grave human rights violations. The conflict provoked a shift in the delicate equilibrium between the different ethnic groups inhabiting the republics of the region: several hundred thousands of Chechen and ethnic Russians refugees fled to neighboring territories, stirring ethnic rivalries. Almost 50,000 civilians died during the war and almost 80% of the Chechen economy was destroyed (International Crisis Group, 2012a, p. 10). Furthermore, around 1,400 Chechens and 1,000
13
22
Russians went missing during the hostilities (HRW, 1997). Although grave breaches of international law became evident during the war also to the international public, the Western democracies were hesitant to insistently criticize the brutal proceeding of the Russian forces in Chechnya – not least because Yeltsin was perceived savior of Russia who would establish democracy and western market models in the new Federation which hence granted him greater power of discretion (Hill, Lieven & de Waal, 2005, p. 3).
In July 1995, the Russian Constitutional Court affirmed that article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II applied to the conflict in Chechnya, thus confirming that massive infractions of principles and norms of IHL were committed during the war. These violations have been extensively reported by IGOs, NGOs and by governmental institutions such as the Russian President’s Human Rights Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (Faurby, 2002, p. 105).
Both Chechens and Russians have reportedly committed serious violations of human rights. Chechen rebels reportedly transported fighting to civilian areas and physically and psychologically threatened citizens who did not take part in the fighting and village leaders who did not cooperate with the rebels (Faurby, 2002, p. 106). The Russian conduct of the war resembled a punishment of the Chechen people; numerous disproportionate and indiscriminate bombings of civilian targets and mass killings were among the most severe violations of human rights (Faurby, 2002, p. 107).
Notwithstanding violations committed by the Chechen side, it has been estimated that the Russian forces perpetrated the largest number of violations and the most serious ones. Because the Kremlin at that time had signed several international treaties concerning IHL and IHRL (such as the Geneva Conventions and its protocols, the UN Charter and the UN Convention against Torture), violations of human rights in Chechnya (between 1994 and 1996) fall under the category of violations of international law. Moreover, according to the R2P principle the Russian government had the primary responsibility for protecting its own populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity14. Already during the war, on the 6th of January 1995, the ICJ accused the Russian forces to have used violence against civilian targets, stating that “the Russian army violated the right of life of unarmed civilians on a massive scale” (Faurby, 2002, p. 107). The Russian Chairman of the Human Rights Commission – Sergej Kovaljov – estimated that the battle of Grozny alone caused the death of
14
23
27.000 civilians. Russian forces often surrounded towns and villages and threatened the population to attack if they did not deliver weaponry or pay considerable sums of money (Faurby, 2002, p. 107). According to Human Rights Watch, the most important civilian massacre during the First Chechen War was the Samashki massacre (HRW, 1996a). Between the 7th and 8th of April 1995, Russian paramilitary troops entered in Samashki – a village at the border of Chechnya and Ingushetia – and deliberately killed more than 250 civilians (Celestan, 1996). A report from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) described the event and reported that “Federal soldiers deliberately and arbitrarily attacked civilians and civilian dwellings in Samashki by shooting residents and burning houses. […] many OMON15 troops were drunk or under the influence of drugs. They wantonly opened fire or threw grenades into basements where residents, mostly women, elderly persons and children, had been hiding” (UN Commission on Human Rights, 1996).
A report by the OSCE in 1996 showed that grave breaches of IHL and IHRL were carried out both during the war and in its aftermath. After the peace agreement signed in August 1996, 1.432 Chechens were estimated to be missing, and probably the real number was even higher. Later on, most of them have been found dead in mass graves (in total, eight mass graves have been found around the republic, containing Russian and Chechen corpses). Moreover, some 140 people were assumed to be forcibly detained by the Russian side after the signing of the peace accord, despite mutual agreements to release all detainees. At the same time, Russian authorities obstructed the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)16. Russian authorities denied ICRC members full access to people forcibly detained in Chechnya, demanding the permission of the presiding judge before giving them the chance to assist the persons detained. Also other NGOs and IGOs, including the ICRC, were hindered in carrying out humanitarian aid with the argumentation that the crisis was a matter of internal affairs. However, the OSCE stated that “issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms constitutes one of the foundations of the international order” (CSCE, 1991, p. 29).
Furthermore, during the war, Russian forces were using practices of torture and mistreated Chechens in captivity, violating the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
15
The Special Purpose Mobility Unity (OMON) was a system of special police units of Federal Police within the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (HRW, 2000a, p. 38). It has been replaced the National Guard of Russia in 2016 (Goncharenko, 2016).
16
24
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment17. Russian forces held Chechens in “filtration camps“ or ”filtration points” that have been condemned by IGOs, NGO and the Russian Chairman of Human Rights for exercising torture (HRW, 1996b). Men, women and children were detained in these camps. The conditions in the camps were regarded inhuman: interns were kept in unheated boxes, raped, and only supplied with limited amount of food and water. Moreover, the Council of Europe reported that the interned were not provided with any legal counsel or any legal process. During the war, columns of refugees were shot by soldiers and bombed by airstrikes. Furthermore, Russian forces have been stealing and ransacked Chechen properties. Finally, Russian authorities were aware of the crimes committed by their troops, but have been negligent in stopping them and in prosecuting those that were known for having committed violations of IHL. This behavior was harshly criticized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Russian authorities used the Chechen violations of human rights as a justification for own violations. However, this behavior has been declared unacceptable by the Human Rights Committee of the PACE and it declared that the actions undertaken by the Russian forces and authorities were unnecessary as well as unjustified (Faurby, 2002, pp. 107 – 111).
In conclusion, during the First Chechen War severe human rights violations, grave breaches of IHL, war crimes and crimes against humanity were conducted. From the examination of the First Chechen War, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn to the sub-research question: What types of human rights violations were committed in Chechnya and did they change over time?
In the period between 1994 and 1996, first conclusion is that both Russian as well as Chechen forces committed human rights violations, with the Russian forces committing the greater number and severity of violations. The most basic human rights that were violated include the right to life (violations via the use of torture and ill-treatment, and cases of disappearances) and infringement of the right of property. However, the most serious violations were those linked to war crimes and crimes against humanity, mainly linked to military operations of Russian forces that entailed mass-killings of civilians non-involved in the fighting. The analysis of the Second Chechen War and the post-war period in the subsequent paragraph will add to these findings and deliver answers to the question whether human rights violations changed over time.
17
One of the most important international conventions that compose the body of law of IHL and IHRL, see paragraph 2.2.
