May, 09 2012, 09:12am EDT
Russia: Investigate Police Use of Force Against Peaceful Protesters
March Turns Chaotic; Arbitrary Arrests
MOSCOW
Russian authorities should promptly and effectively investigate reports of excessive use of force against protesters and arbitrary detentions during and following a protest on May 6, 2012, Human Rights Watch said today. The authorities should also investigate the allegedly arbitrary detention of hundreds of activists demonstrating peacefully on May 7, Human Rights Watch said.
In the late afternoon of May 6, tens of thousands of protesters marched in central Moscow and began to assemble for a rally sanctioned by the Moscow authorities at Bolotnaya Square, near the Kremlin. After a bottleneck created by police security held up thousands of the protesters on the way to the main rally site, several leaders of the opposition called a sit-down strike and a handful of protesters tried to break through a police line, in some cases using violence. Police responded with force, including using rubber truncheons, detaining hundreds of people, including peaceful protesters as well as those who were acting aggressively.
"Though some protesters apparently disobeyed police orders and even attacked police officers, we received many credible reports of police detaining peaceful protesters along with those who violated the law," said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "We are also concerned about allegations of police brutality, including beatings and causing unnecessary pain and suffering."
The May 6 protest was the first in which violence erupted since public protests began on a periodic basis in December 2011.
Human Rights Watch is concerned that the Russian authorities are using the disorderly behavior of some of the demonstrators on May 6 as a pretext to further curb freedom of assembly. According to the European Court of Human Rights, an unauthorized peaceful protest does not justify an infringement on freedom of assembly, but requires a certain degree of tolerance on the part of the authorities. The government also has a duty to investigate and remedy violations of those obligations.
The right of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Russia is a party, as well as by the Russian Constitution. As the European Court of Human Rights has made clear, the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly is of such importance that a person cannot be subjected to a sanction - even one at the lower end of the scale of disciplinary penalties - for participation in a demonstration that has not been prohibited, so long as this person does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion.
"Contentious protests happen all over the world and human rights law imposes a duty on the state to protect the public from violence," Williamson said. "However, the authorities should not use violent actions by some protesters to attack human rights, including the rights to free assembly and free expression."
Accounts from witnesses of the events on May 6 and 7 follow.
The May 6 Protest
Media reports variously estimate that in the late afternoon of May 6 between 20,000 and 60,000 demonstrators marched from the south of the city center north along Bolshaya Yakimanka Street in central Moscow. The marchers included opposition activists, as well as high school students, elderly people, and others. The protesters headed toward Bolotnaya Square, just across the river from the Kremlin, to the site of a planned rally by opposition political parties and civil society activists protesting the inauguration of Vladimir Putin as president. The protest was peaceful for the first hour.
However, according to media reports and video footage, a bottleneck was created between metal detectors manned by police at the entrance to Bolotnaya Square and the police cordons blocking the road toward the Kremlin. While the demonstrators at the head of the processions successfully made it to the square, a column of thousands of demonstrators was held up. People were eventually backed up several hundred meters on Bolshaya Polyanka Street, leading from Bolshaya Yakimanka to Bolotnaya Square, waiting to reach the rally site.
Apparently frustrated at the delay, several recognized leaders of the protest movement, including Sergei Udaltsov, Alexei Navalny and Ilia Yashin, declared a "sit-down political strike." They sat on the ground in front of the police line and called on others to join them. According to media reports, Udaltsov voiced their demands as "one hour of federal television time, suspension of Putin's inauguration, and re-elections." The strikers started singing a famous revolutionary song and made calls and sent messages to others, including on Twitter, to bring food, water, and tents and to stay put.
Based on video footage examined by Human Rights Watch, shortly after 6 p.m., a group of young aggressive protesters tried to break through the police cordon. Riot police officers used rubber batons against them and detained several protesters. Some succeeded in breaking through the police cordon. One threw an improvised incendiary device in a bottle at police, but the flames instead set the clothes of another demonstrator on fire. Police officers and other protesters helped put out the flames. After the homemade incendiary device was thrown, protracted and violent confrontations between riot police and aggressive protesters ensued.
Udaltsov and Navalny managed to make their way to Bolotnaya Square soon after the police cordon had been breached. Udaltsov went to the podium and, using two loudspeakers, called on people to stay in the square indefinitely. Police dragged him off the stage and detained him together with Navalny. Both spent the night in custody, were tried the next day for "disobeying police orders," and sentenced to pay 1,000-ruble [approximately US$30] fines.
During the next two hours, police detained large numbers of protesters. Human Rights Watch researchers witnessed some of the detentions. The Human Rights Watch researchers also interviewed numerous witnesses to detentions, all of whom asserted that they saw people who did not engaged in violence detained along with those who violated public order. The witnesses consistently said the police had used force, irrespective of whether detainees were presenting a threat to police or others.
Accounts of Police Violence
Several activists interviewed by Human Rights Watch, including two who were themselves detained, said that riot police in full gear dragged protesters by their arms and feet, twisted their arms, and stomped on people who had fallen to the ground. Witnesses also reported that some people were bleeding from being hit or dragged by police along the asphalt and that at least three demonstrators had to be hospitalized after being released from police precincts later in the evening.
One witness, Sergei Davidis, a human rights lawyer, and an organizer of the event, said:
People were being arrested indiscriminately all over the place. The use of force was not targeted just against those manifesting aggression. One [peaceful] woman, for example, was shocked with an electroshock weapon. I saw many people beaten by police. They used batons a lot, including against those people who were standing there peacefully and just could not get out of the crowd.
Riot police officers hit Alexei Pomerantsev, a journalist from the prominent independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, with batons and dragged him to join other detainees held in a reinforced vehicle. Novaya Gazeta reported that Pomerantsev was released quickly, once he was able to show his media identification to a police officer in charge of the vehicle.
Dmitry Oreshkin - a prominent policy social scientist and member of Russia's Presidential Civil Society and Human Rights Council, a group of prominent civil society activists and experts recruited by the president to advise him on human rights issues - told Human Rights Watch what he saw. He said that when the bottleneck created by police was causing demonstrators around him to be pushed together and the crowd was growing increasingly agitated, he decided to intervene with the police, using his official credentials.
Oreshkin said that police roughed him up as he tried to speak to them. "I started asking them to let people proceed to the square, to give them more space, to give them more space by moving the police chain some 10 meters back, but they ignored me," Oreshkin said. "I tried to get through the chain waving my ID to speak to some officials in command, but they would not let me. Several officers stomped on my feet. I received a punch in my stomach. They did something to my hand - it started bleeding... Finally, some [more senior official] came up and ordered to let me though."
A member of the Presidential Civil Society and Human Rights Council, Elena Panfilova, who is the head of the Russia Chapter for Transparency International, was at the protest and witnessed many of the detentions. She emphasized to Human Rights Watch that she was particularly distressed by the roughness of detentions, in which police twisted people's arms and dragged them on the ground. She indicated that according to her observations, it was specifically riot police - as opposed to regular police officers - who engaged in excessive force. Panfilova also believed that the authorities "generally created a situation in which many perfectly orderly peaceful citizens, some of them with their whole families, were trapped in the crowd amid violence without any escape options."
"Even when public protests become disorderly and police officials face violence from some of the demonstrators, it does not justify the use of excessive and indiscriminate force and arbitrary detentions," Williamson said.
Witnesses in other locations, including farther up Bolshaya Yakimanka Street before and after the outbreak of violence, stated that protesters had become increasingly nervous as they did not know what was happening, and were being squeezed from all sides by fellow demonstrators and police.
After several minutes of general chaos on Bolotnaya Square following the announcement of the sit-down strike on the other side of the police cordon, some people chose to leave the square and others headed back to the entrance of the square to find out what was going on. At first the police would not let people proceed in that direction. Only after the intervention of several observers from the Presidential Council and the Ombudsman did the police allow demonstrators to leave via the small Luzhkov Bridge across the canal.
"Good policing means effectively managing large crowds of peaceful people to ensure that they can safely exercise their right to express themselves," Williamson said. "Unfortunately the police in central Moscow failed to create the right conditions for many of the people gathered there to leave the area safely once the situation turned chaotic."
Panfilova said that she and other observers from the Presidential Council tried to intervene with the police when they saw police acting in a way they considered abusive. But she said such attempts were useless in trying to rein in the riot police. "We tried to do something about the number and brutality of detentions by intervening with the leadership of the Moscow police, but it seems that the riot police would not even listen to them," Panfilova said.
Violence by Protesters
Some protesters also resorted to violence against police. Human Rights Watch researchers saw some protesters use smoke bombs and pelt police officers with water bottles, empty and full. Several witnesses also confirmed to Human Rights Watch numerous media reports that aggressive youths threw chunks of asphalt and stones at police. Some demonstrators also turned over several portable toilets in an attempt to make barricades and threw a flagpole at the police.
A witness told Human Rights Watch that a stone hit a policeman in the face and that he bled profusely. Another witness told Human Rights Watch that he saw two incidents in which protesters attacked individual police officers and beat them with hands and fists. Some protesters snatched helmets and radios from police officers, and threw them into the canal.
According to official reports by the Minister of Internal Affairs, 20 officers were injured and 3 required hospitalization. Video footage indicates that some protesters used mace against the police. A Human Rights Watch researcher saw a crowd of demonstrators throw orange and banana peels, bottles and all sorts of street garbage at a car belonging to NTV, a pro-governmental federal television channel known for its efforts to discredit the opposition.
Detentions and Military Conscription
By 10 p.m. on May 6, the Internal Affairs Ministry reported that law enforcement officials had detained over 400 people. On May 7, however, OVD Info, an independent website featuring information about police detentions during public protests, indicated that about 650 people had been arrested, providing most of the names and identifying specific police precincts where people were held.
Some were released several hours later. Others were held overnight. The majority of those tried the next day were sentenced to fines of up to 1,000 rubles [approximately US$30] for "violating the established procedure for arranging or conducting a demonstration" or for disobeying police, although a few protesters were sentenced to several days of administrative detention. Many protesters, while released, are still awaiting trial.
Human Rights Watch is also looking into several cases in which protesters of conscription age were presented with notification that they had been called to perform their military service. Numerous media and blog accounts also reported multiple cases in which this happened.
Military service in Russia is infamous for brutal hazing and other grave abuses of the rights of conscripts. As a result, draft quotas are hard to meet as most men of conscription age seek to avoid service, whether through deferments or other means. In 2002 Human Rights Watch published a report documenting the illegal practice by police of detaining young men to deliver them to military recruitment offices, although police should have no role in draft enforcement. Based on reports from detainees, it would appear the government is now using the police to issue draft notifications as a punitive and intimidation measure against young protest activists, Human Rights Watch said.
"To use the well-founded fear of exposure to abuse and harm in the draft system as a form of punishment to discourage young men from taking part in public protests, is an outrageous and cynical tactic," Williamson said.
May 7 Protests
On May 7, while the presidential inauguration ceremony was in progress, small groups of peaceful activists came together in several locations in central Moscow to express their frustration that Putin was becoming Russia's president for the third time. Many wore white ribbons, the symbol of the protest movement, and chanted slogans. Some played musical instruments and sang.
Media and blog reports said that the police "mopped up" the city center and even raided some popular cafes, detaining anyone they saw wearing white ribbons. OVD Info reported that 499 peaceful protestors were detained on May 7. Practically all of them were released after being held for a short period. On May 8, similar detentions of peaceful street protesters continued, with dozens more people detained by early afternoon.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Led by US, Global Military Spending Surged to Record $2.4 Trillion Last Year
"Can we get some healthcare please, or maybe feed some of the 40 million+ Americans who can't get enough food?" asked the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Apr 22, 2024
New research published Monday shows that global military spending increased in 2023 for the ninth consecutive year, surging to $2.4 trillion as Russia's assault on Ukraine and Israel's war on the Gaza Strip helped push war-related outlays to an all-time high.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) recorded military spending increases in every geographical region it examined last year, from Europe to Oceania to the Middle East. Last year's global increase of 6.8% was the largest since 2009, SIPRI said.
The United States was by far the largest military spender at $916 billion in 2023, up 2.3% compared to the previous year. The next biggest spender was China, which poured an estimated $296 billion into its military last year—three times less than the U.S.
"Can we get some healthcare please, or maybe feed some of the 40 million+ Americans who can't get enough food?" asked the watchdog group Public Citizen in response to SIPRI's report, which found that the U.S. accounted for 37% of the world's total military spending last year.
A separate analysis of U.S. military spending in 2023 found that 62% of the country's federal discretionary budget went to militarized programs, leaving less than half of the budget for healthcare, housing, nutrition assistance, education, and other domestic priorities.
Together, SIPRI found, the top five biggest military spenders last year—the U.S., China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia—accounted for 61% of global military outlays.
"The unprecedented rise in military spending is a direct response to the global deterioration in peace and security," Nan Tian, senior researcher with SIPRI's Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, said in a statement. "States are prioritizing military strength but they risk an action-reaction spiral in the increasingly volatile geopolitical and security landscape."
In the Middle East, military spending jumped by 9% last year—the highest annual growth rate in the past decade. Israel, which relies heavily on weapons imports from the U.S., spent 24% more on its military last year than in 2022, according to SIPRI, an increase fueled by the country's devastating assault on Gaza.
SIPRI found that NATO's 31 member countries dumped a combined $1.3 trillion into military expenditures in 2023, accounting for 55% of the global total.
U.S. military spending, which is poised to continue surging in the coming years, made up 68% of NATO's 2023 total.
Keep ReadingShow Less
IDF Kills 18 Children in Rafah Hours After US House Approves Billions in Military Aid
"Members of Congress should understand that approving more military aid could subject them to personal liability for aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide in Gaza."
Apr 22, 2024
Hours after the U.S. House approved legislation that would send billions of dollars in additional military aid to Israel, the country's forces killed nearly two dozen people in Rafah, the southern Gaza city where more than half of the enclave's population is sheltering.
Gaza health officials said Sunday that the weekend strikes on Rafah—a former "safe zone" that Israel has been threatening to invade for weeks—killed 22 people, including 18 children. The Associated Pressreported that the first of the Israeli strikes "killed a man, his wife, and their 3-year-old child, according to the nearby Kuwaiti Hospital, which received the bodies."
"The woman was pregnant and the doctors saved the baby, the hospital said," AP added. "The second strike killed 17 children and two women from an extended family."
Israeli forces have killed more than 14,000 children in Gaza since October, but the Biden administration and American lawmakers have refused to back growing international calls to cut off the supply of weaponry and other military equipment even as U.S. voters express support for an arms embargo.
The measure the House approved on Saturday includes $26 billion in funding for Israel, much of which is military assistance.
"Just a day after the House voted to send $14 billion in unconditional military funding to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's campaign of death and destruction, he bombed the safe zone of Rafah AGAIN, killing 22 Palestinians, of which 18 were CHILDREN!" U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), one of the 58 House lawmakers who voted against the legislation, wrote on social media late Sunday.
"History books will write about today and the past seven months, and how our nation's leaders lacked the courage and moral clarity to stand up to a tyrant," she added. "Shameful."
The military aid package for Israel now heads to the U.S. Senate, which is set to consider the bill early this week. U.S. President Joe Biden, who has continued to greenlight arms sales to Israel amid clear evidence of war crimes, is expected to sign the measure if it reaches his desk.
"Rather than sending more weapons to Israel, Congress should declare an immediate arms embargo on Israel."
U.S. law prohibits "arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law," according to a White House memo issued in February. The U.S. State Department has said repeatedly that it has not found Israel to be in violation of international law, a position that runs directly counter to the findings of leading humanitarian organizations and United Nations experts.
The investigative outlet ProPublicareported last week that a "special State Department panel recommended months ago that Secretary of State Antony Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after reviewing allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses" prior to the October 7 Hamas-led attack on southern Israel.
"But Blinken has failed to act on the proposal in the face of growing international criticism of the Israeli military's conduct in Gaza, according to current and former State Department officials," ProPublica noted.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said in a statement Sunday that senators "should reject sending additional weapons to Israel not only because our laws prohibit military aid to abusive regimes, but because it's extremely damaging to our national interests."
DAWN's advocacy director, Raed Jarrar, added that "at a time when Israel is bracing for International Criminal Court arrest warrants against its leaders, members of Congress should understand that approving more military aid could subject them to personal liability for aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide in Gaza."
"Rather than sending more weapons to Israel," said Jarrar, "Congress should declare an immediate arms embargo on Israel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Treaty Negotiations, Hundreds March to 'End the Plastic Era'
"As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment," one young activists said.
Apr 21, 2024
Days before national delegates gather for the fourth and penultimate negotiations to develop a Global Plastics Treaty in Ottawa, Canada, around 500 Indigenous and community representatives, members of civil society and environmental groups, and experts and scientists gathered for a "March to End the Plastic Era" on Sunday.
The protesters, organized under the banner of Break Free From Plastic, called for a treaty that significantly reduces plastic production and centers the frontline communities most impacted by the plastics crisis.
"Delegates must act like our lives depend on it—because they do," Daniela Duran Gonzales, senior legal campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement. "Our climate goals, the protection of human health, the enjoyment of human rights, and the rights of future generations all rest on whether the future plastics treaty will control and reduce polymers to successfully end the plastic pollution crisis."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet."
The official meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to craft a "international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment," will run from April 23 to 29 in the Canadian capital.
Break Free From Plastic called the negotiations a "make or break" moment for the treaty, which is supposed to be completed in late 2024 in Busan, South Korean. However, civil society groups have expressed concern that oil-producing countries and the plastics industry will water down the agreement and steer it toward waste management and recycling, which has been revealed to be a false solution to plastic pollution knowingly promoted by the industry for decades.
The last round of negotiations concluded in late 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, with little progress made after 143 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists attended.
Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Thailand, who is the senior campaigner and Southeast Asia plastics project manager for the Environmental Justice Foundation, said ahead of Sunday's march that it was "crucial for world leaders to step up and put the people and planet at the forefront."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet," Traipipitsiriwat added.
On Sunday, marchers gathered for a press conference at 10:30 am ET before marching at around 11:30 am from Parliament Hill to the Shaw Center, were negotiations will begin on Tuesday. Crowds began to disperse around 1:30 pm. Participants carried large banners with messages including, "End the plastic era," "End multigenerational toxic exposure," and pointing out that 99% of plastics came from fossil fuels. The gathering featured live music and art, including a giant tap pouring out plastics and a "Plastisaurus rex" with the message "Make single-use plastic extinct."
(Photo: Break Free From Plastics)
"Now's the time to be bold and push for a treaty that cuts plastic production and holds polluters accountable," Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a pre-march statement. "I'm inspired to be joining so many advocates in Ottawa, standing up against the enormous harm the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are causing to people's health and the planet. I hope to see countries showing ambition this week, and I urge them to remember what's at stake for future generations."
Civil society groups have compiled several demands for an ambitious and effective treaty. These are:
- Centering human rights, especially those of Indigenous communities, young people, and workers most impacted by plastic pollution;
- Protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples throughout the treaty process;
- Dealing with plastics across their entire lifecyle;
- Reducing production as a "nonnegotiable" part of the treaty;
- Eliminating toxic chemicals and additives from plastics;
- Bolstering reuse systems for plastics that are non-toxic;
- Prioritizing first prevention, then reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal when managing plastic waste;
- Ending "waste colonialism" by strengthening regulations for trading plastics;
- Guaranteeing a "just transition" for people employed across the plastics lifecycle;
- Including "non-party" provisions in the treaty;
- Establishing a mechanism to fund countries so they can fully implement the treaty; and
- Enshrining conflict-of-interest policies as a protection against plastics industry lobbying.
The coalition emphasized the need to tackle the problem of plastic from cradle to grave.
"Plastic doesn't just become pollution when it's thrown away," said Jessica Roff, the U.S. and Canada plastics and petrochemicals program manager for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. "Plastic is pollution, from the moment the fossil fuels are extracted from the ground to the eternity of waste it spawns."
Chrie Wilke, global advocacy manager for the Waterkeeper Alliance, said "Clearly the crux of the plastic pollution crisis is too much plastic being produced. There is no way to recycle our way out of this. We must face the fact that plastic and petrochemicals, at current production levels, endanger waterways, communities, and fisheries across the globe. Cutting production and implementing non-plastic alternatives and reuse systems is essential."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Activists also emphasized the environmental justice implications of plastic pollution, and how some communities and groups are more burdened than others, both from the dangers of the production process and from waste disposal.
"Children and youth like me suffer the most and are recognized as a vulnerable group," said Aeshnina 'Nina' Azzahra, the founder of River Warrior Indonesia. "My playground and my future are at risk. We all want our environment to be plastic-free, but please don't put your burden on the other side of the world—this is NOT fair. As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment."
Jo Banner, co-founder and co-directer of The Descendants Project, said:"Frontline community members, such as myself, are participating in these treaty negotiations with heavy hearts as our communities back home are struggling with sickness and disease caused by the upstream production of plastic."
"Although our hearts are heavy, they are full with passion urging negotiators to aim for an ambitious treaty that caps plastic production," Banner added. "Areas such as my hometown, located in the heart of Louisiana's Cancer Alley, need a strong treaty now. There is no more time to waste."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular