"Russia: Information About the Country of Origin, and How to Find It" — Iryna Kuzina, Attorney at BARRISTERS, LLC
In cases involving the granting of refugee status or status as a person in need of subsidiary protection (“refugee cases”), as well as in criminal proceedings concerning extradition (“extradition cases”), it is necessary to research and provide the court with information on the country of origin (“COI, Country of Origin Information”). Since 2014, information regarding the Russian Federation has been particularly relevant. However, obtaining COI on Russia that meets the requirements of relevance, balance, and accuracy requires considerable effort.
Why do we need to seek out COI?
In accordance with paragraph 2 of subparagraph “c” of section 4.1 of the Rules for the Consideration of Applications and the Preparation of Documents Necessary for Deciding on the Recognition of a Person as a Refugee or a Person in Need of Supplementary Protection, the loss or revocation of refugee status and subsidiary protection, and the annulment of a decision recognizing a person as a refugee or a person in need of subsidiary protection, approved by Order No. 649 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated September 7, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), the conclusion (which serves as the basis for the decision of the territorial body of the State Migration Service following the preliminary review of applications—author’s note) must include a reference to the information used regarding the applicant’s country of origin, including page numbers, titles of information reports, years, and the names of the institutions or organizations that prepared them, a link to the URL if the reports were published online, and its correlation with the content of the application and the information obtained during the interview with the applicant or his or her legal representative. This conclusion must include references to accurate, up-to-date information from multiple sources.
In general, the responsibility for searching for such information lies with the authorized official of the territorial office of the State Migration Service. However, as practice shows, the authorized official often fails to properly fulfill this obligation, which requires the attorney to conduct the necessary search.
From a tactical standpoint, it may not be advisable to provide the relevant ICP to the authorized official of the territorial office of the State Migration Service during the preliminary review. However, in the event of an appeal against the relevant denial order in administrative court, searching for the ICP is included in the list of actions the attorney must take to prepare the case for trial.
According to paragraph 10 of Resolution No. 1 of the Plenum of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine dated June 25, 2009, “On Judicial Practice in the Consideration of Disputes Concerning Refugee Status, the expulsion of a foreign national or stateless person from Ukraine, and disputes related to the stay of a foreign national or stateless person in Ukraine,” as amended and supplemented by Resolution No. 3 of the Plenum of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine dated June 20, 2011, when considering such cases, courts should take into account that evidence confirming the well-foundedness of fears of persecution (based on information regarding the possibility of such persecution in the refugee’s country of origin) may be obtained from the person seeking refugee status and, independently of that person, - from various reliable sources of information, such as UN Security Council resolutions, documents and reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, and information collected and analyzed by the State Migration Service of Ukraine and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Rules for the Examination of Applications and the Preparation of Documents Required for Decisions on the Recognition of a Person as a Refugee or a Person in Need of Supplementary Protection, the Loss and Revocation of Refugee Status and Supplementary Protection, and the Revocation of a Decision Recognizing a Person as a Refugee or a Person in Need of Supplementary Protection, approved by Order No. 649 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated September 7, 2011, as well as from other international, governmental, and non-governmental organizations, and from publications in the media. To fully establish the circumstances in such cases, as a rule, more than one source of information about the country of origin should be used.
Courts may use information on countries of origin posted on the official websites of the State Migration Service of Ukraine, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as well as from informational materials distributed by the Regional Office of the UNHCR in Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, and other sources.
When considering cases regarding refugee status and the status of a person in need of subsidiary protection, the forced expulsion of a foreign national or stateless person from Ukraine, and disputes related to the stay of a foreign national or stateless person in Ukraine, it must be taken into account that information about the country of origin constitutes common knowledge. Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 72 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, circumstances recognized by the court as common knowledge do not require proof.
However, the ICP may prove useful not only in “asylum” cases but also in “extradition” cases. For example, it may serve as evidence of the existence of grounds for applying paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 589 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
How to search for the ICP?
Unfortunately, the Russian-language segment of the Internet lacks information about human rights in the Russian Federation and its compliance with international treaties in this area. For example, if you visit the official website of the Human Rights Commissioner of the Russian Federation, it would appear that the country is entirely prosperous and that human rights violations are isolated incidents. It is not surprising that the state will not fund the translation into Russian of reports by international organizations that contradict the official position. Furthermore, the Russian Federation’s State Committee for Communications and Informatization operates in the country, ensuring effective state control over the online environment.
The statistics on complaints against Russia filed with the European Court of Human Rights (over 14% as of the end of 2018) cast doubt on this rosy picture and prompt a search for other, impartial sources of information. Moreover, most of these sources are available in English rather than Russian.
The quickest way to find human rights information on Russia is to consult information and reference resources, the main ones being:
https://www.refworld.org/—a website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
https://www.ecoi.net/ – the European Country of Origin Information Network.
Some of these resources even offer search filters—not only by country, but also by the issues covered in the relevant reports and by source type.
However, unfortunately, the search for Country of Origin Information (COI) is not limited to these resources. For example, United Nations documents can also be found on the official website https://www.un.org, although this is not always straightforward. It is advisable to search for UN documents, given that some of them are translated into Russian—one of the organization’s working languages—and, in general, this source is highly trusted.
You can also use the following websites:
https://www.easo.europa.eu/ - European Asylum Support Office;
https://www.amnesty.org/en/ - Amnesty International (a human rights organization);
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/home - Council of Europe;
https://www.hrw.org/ - Human Rights Watch;
https://freedomhouse.org/ - Freedom House (human rights organization);
https://www.state.gov/ - The United States Department of State.
This brings us to the question of specific human rights reports on the Russian Federation that are currently available and have recently been used in cases under my jurisdiction.
Reports on the Russian Federation
Published on March 19, 2018, document code A/HRC/WG.6/30/RUS/2 (17 pages).
In particular, page 4 of this report states:
“24. The Human Rights Committee remains concerned about reports that torture and ill-treatment continue to be widely used in the country, including to extract confessions… 30. The Special Rapporteur expressed concern regarding reports that pretrial detention is ordered by judges as a rule rather than as an exception.”
Published on April 28, 2015, document code CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7 (15 pages).
In particular, page 7 of this document states:
“… The Committee remains concerned by reports that torture and ill-treatment continue to be widely used in the country, including to extract confessions… The State party should take effective measures to eradicate torture and ill-treatment…”.
Further, pages 8–9 of this document state:
“The Committee… is also concerned about reports regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of court-appointed defense counsel… The State Party should… d) put in place effective legal safeguards to ensure the impartiality of court-appointed lawyers, including a mechanism for reviewing complaints by defendants challenging the impartiality of such lawyers…”
Russia 2018 Human Rights Report. U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State Report on Human Rights in Russia in 2018 (60 pages).
In particular, the Report states:
On page 2: “There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.”
On page 3: “There are numerous reports that authorities in some penal colonies systematically tortured prisoners (see Section 1.c.), which in some cases led to death.”
On page 4: “According to the report of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, there were 808 documented cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances in the country in 2017.”
On pages 5–6: “Although the constitution prohibits such practices, numerous credible reports indicate that law enforcement officials engage in torture, ill-treatment, and violence, coerce suspects into confessing, and authorities rarely hold such officials accountable for these actions. There were reports of deaths resulting from torture (see Section 1.a.). Physical abuse of suspects by police officers was systematic and typically occurred during the first few days of detention in pretrial detention facilities. Reports from human rights groups and former police officers indicated that the police most often used electric shocks, strangulation, stretching, or pressure on joints and ligaments, as these methods were considered to leave visible marks. The problem was particularly acute in the North Caucasus. There were numerous reports that the FSB used torture against young anarchists and anti-fascist activists who were allegedly implicated in several cases involving terrorism and extremism.”
On page 7: “There were numerous reports that the authorities held defendants in custody for psychiatric evaluation for 30 days or longer in order to exert pressure on them, or referred defendants to psychiatric treatment as a form of punishment. Starting on July 19, new amendments to the Code of Administrative Procedure allowed prosecutors to request that suspects be placed in psychiatric clinics on a compulsory basis; The law previously allowed only certified medical professionals to file such motions, although human rights advocates noted that, in practice, prosecutors already had this ability.”
On page 8: “Conditions in detention centers and prisons varied, but were often harsh and life-threatening. Overcrowding, violence by guards and other inmates, limited access to medical care, food shortages, and inadequate sanitation were common in prisons, penal colonies, and other places of detention.”
On page 10: “Although the law prohibits arbitrary arrests and detentions, the authorities clearly engage in this practice. The law provides for the right of any person to challenge the legality of their arrest or detention, but successful challenges were rare.”
On page 11: “Although mechanisms for investigating abuses existed, the government generally failed to investigate or punish violence by law enforcement officials, and impunity was widespread.”
On page 12: “By law, a detainee may challenge the legality of their detention in court. Given the problems with judicial independence (see Section 1.e), judges generally sided with the investigating officer and dismissed the detainees’ complaints.”
Annual Report on Political Rights and Civil Liberties in 2018. Freedom House
Report by the human rights organization “Freedom House” on the Russian Federation—“Annual Report on Political and Civil Liberties in 2018” (10 pages).
In particular, page 10 of this report states (here and below—translated by the author):
“D3. Is there academic freedom, and is the education system free from significant political influence? 1/4
The higher education system and the Academy of Sciences are hampered by bureaucratic interference, state-imposed international isolation, and increased pressure from the Kremlin on politically sensitive topics, although some scholars continue to express their own views. In August 2018, the authorities reinstated the European University in St. Petersburg’s license to provide educational services, which had previously been suspended in March 2017. This decision forced the independent institution, known for its high-quality programs in the social sciences and humanities, to cancel classes for the entire year and cast doubt on its future. In June 2018, the state education regulator revoked the teaching license of the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (Shaninka), another important private college, claiming that its courses and instructors did not meet quality standards.
Historians researching the Stalin era have faced pressure from the regime. Sergei Koltyrin and Yuri Dmitriev, who were conducting research at a site in Karelia where many victims of Stalinist persecution are buried, faced unrelated criminal charges throughout 2018 that appeared to be motivated by their work.”
Further on, on page 7 of this Report, the following is stated:
“F2. Are due process standards observed in civil and criminal cases? 0/4
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and other guarantees of due process are regularly violated, especially for individuals who oppose or are perceived as a threat to the interests of the political leadership and its allies…
As of October 2018, “Memorial” had recognized 195 individuals as political prisoners in Russia, compared to 117 the previous year. The list includes human rights defenders, journalists, Ukrainian citizens who opposed the Russian occupation of Crimea, as well as people imprisoned for their religious beliefs.”
Further, on pages 7–8 of this Report, the following is stated:
“F3. Is there protection against the unlawful use of physical force and freedom from war and insurgents? 0/4
The use of unjustified force by the police is widespread, and human rights organizations report that law enforcement officials committing such abuses have deliberately used electric shocks, choking, and stretching the detainee’s body to avoid visible injuries. Prisons are overcrowded and unsanitary; prisoners lack access to medical care and are subject to violence by guards. In August 2018, *Novaya Gazeta* published videos showing guards organizing beatings of prisoners in Yaroslavl. Authorities arrested at least 12 prison guards following public outcry, but the NGO “Public Verdict” reported systematic violence at another prison in the region in December…”
Annual Report on the Human Rights Situation in 2018, Human Rights Watch
Report by the human rights organization “Human Rights Watch” on the Russian Federation – “Annual Report on the Human Rights Situation in 2018” (8 pages).
In particular, page 1 of this report states:
“Torture and cruel and degrading treatment.
In July, *Novaya Gazeta* published a leaked video showing prison staff in Yaroslavl brutally beating an inmate. In response to public outrage, the Russian Investigative Committee arrested 15 suspects by November. One suspect testified that the staff recorded the video to demonstrate that they had carried out management’s order to punish the prisoner…
In August, “Meduza,” an independent online publication, published a list of more than 50 other cases of torture that were publicly reported in 2018. The authorities opened only a few criminal investigations into the allegations, and only one case went to trial.”
Further on, on page 4 of this Report, it states:
“Attacks on human rights defenders.
…In April, a court acquitted Yuri Dmitriev, head of Memorial’s Karelian branch, of false charges of child pornography involving his adopted daughter. However, the police re-arrested him in June on criminal charges of sexual abuse of a child. “Memorial” claimed that the charges against Dmitriev were politically motivated as part of a broader campaign against the organization.”
EASO. Country of Origin Information Report. Russian Federation. State Actors of Protection
Report by the European Asylum Support Office, “Country of Origin Information Report. Russian Federation. Law Enforcement Agencies” (148 pages).
In particular, pages 87–88 of this report state:
“According to SOVA, the authorities use the provisions on extremism in the Russian Criminal Code (§ 280, § 280.1, and § 282) to unlawfully persecute individuals who have criticized the authorities either online or in other settings. This includes members of the following groups: nationalists, religious activists, political activists, and, in some cases, labor activists and environmentalists.)
HRW and the Russian NGO “Agora” explained that if a prosecutor succeeds in bringing such a case to court, the likelihood of a conviction is high. “Agora” asserts that government critics and members of the opposition typically do not win court cases due to their political stance. According to HRW, however, such cases are often dismissed due to the absence of a criminal offense.
Typically, individuals convicted of such crimes appeal their cases to a higher court. “Sova” reported to the Norwegian COI Center Landinfo that there have been only a few acquittals in such cases, and appeals filed by the convicted individuals have not been successful. Crimes related to extremism have been a priority for the police, and there is pressure from the authorities to resolve such cases. According to reports by “Sova,” the courts generally side with the prosecutor, and appellate courts typically uphold the decisions of lower courts.
“Agora” adds that the government has launched, for example, an anti-extremism campaign, an anti-corruption campaign, and an anti-drug campaign. “There is strong political pressure to convict defendants in such cases, which negatively affects the independence of judicial decisions.”
Thus, there is sufficient publicly available information about the country of origin—the Russian Federation—that can refute the claims made by representatives of the State Migration Service regarding the lack of grounds for the applicants’ fears of returning to Russia.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to the organizers of the “2019 School of Migration Law”—the “Right to Protection” Charitable Foundation and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)—as well as to Mykola Ivanovych Pashkovskyi, Ph.D. in Law,, attorney, and scientific advisor at Barristers Law Firm, Mykola Ivanovych Pashkovskyi, for his useful practical advice, much of which was utilized in the preparation of this material.
(c) Iryna Kuzina, attorney
07/03/2019
Author: Iryna Kuzina
Source: