Kommersant
Chechen village costs Russia 1.7 million euros
The European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday that Russian authorities will have to pay a record compensation of 1.72 million euros for civilian deaths in the Chechen village of Katyr-Yurt, bombed by the Russian Air Force in 2000.
There were 29 plaintiffs in the case of Abuyeva vs. Russia. All were residents of Katyr-Yurt, which the Russian Air Force bombed during the period February 4-6, 2000. Military prosecutors said 46 civilians died; however, according to human rights activists, there were three times more casualties. “I went to the scene immediately after this tragedy, and locals claimed more than 150 people had died,” said Alexander Cherkasov of the Russian Memorial Human Rights Center. Cherkasov added that Katyr-Yurt was bombed after the infamous “Wolf Hunt” operation led by General Vladimir Shamanov, who commanded the “Zapad” (West) group of federal forces.
In early February, when the insurgents in Grozny had been routed, Shamanov offered them a peace corridor to leave the city. Alkhan-Kala was the first settlement on the chosen route. Here, the insurgents suffered heavy losses after entering a mine field laid by federal forces. There were dozens of casualties, including Shamil Basayev, whose leg was torn off. The ragtag militants traveled up into the mountains from Alkhan-Kala. They stopped in villages along the way, and among these was Katyr-Yurt. The militants hoped that federal forces would not attack these villages, since refugees were living there and in any case they had been declared “safety zones.”
Seven European Court judges, including Russian Judge Anatoly Kovler, unanimously concluded that the plaintiffs' rights had been violated under Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to life and an effective remedy. The court found that “the use of artillery and aerial bombs in populated areas without the prior evacuation of civilians is not compatible with the degree of public protection that is expected of law enforcement in a democratic society.” The military operation's primary purpose “should have been protecting the lives of innocent people from unlawful violence” and the “massive use of indiscriminate weapons runs directly counter to that goal.”
Three judges suggested that the court's ruling should observe the fundamental rules governing the conduct of parties engaged in hostilities; namely, the principles of international humanitarian law, the notion that the “civilian population and individual civilians shall receive general protection against dangers arising from military operations” and the “civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be turned into a target by the opposing sides.” However, the final court ruling does not include these clauses.
The ruling is not final and any party has the right to launch an appeal in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights within three months. Whether or not Russia will appeal remains unknown. Russia's representative office to the European Court of Human Rights declined to issue a comment.
Kommersant
Doubts grow over Gazprom’s St. Petersburg skyscraper
The controversial 400-meter skyscraper that Russia’s largest company, Gazprom, planned to build opposite the Smolny Monastery in St. Petersburg, may be moved to another site, St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matviyenko disclosed for the first time, speaking on television Thursday. Opponents of the scheme have been pressing for this for five years.
Commenting on President Dmitry Medvedev’s speech to parliament on the TV program Dialogue with the City, Matviyenko made the following sensational statement: “I want to tell both the supporters and opponents of the project that there has, as yet, been no official decision on the start of construction.” She continued: “disputes currently center on the Okhta site” and stressed that they needed “discussion with city residents to resolve this together.”
Then she proceeded to the main concern. “We could move forward as follows, suggesting other sites Gazprom could consider for the construction of such a large and interesting investment project,” she said. “In December, I will be meeting with people dedicated to protecting the city’s architectural heritage who may have ideas and suggestions of where the business center could be built. We all need to calm down. We will find a coherent solution that meets most residents’ requirements,” Matviyenko said. “This is the course we will follow,” she added.
There could have been a host of reasons for the governor’s U-turn. Since May 2010, Medvedev has repeatedly stressed the need to observe international commitments to protect St. Petersburg’s historic center. In a chat with musicians in October, he wondered whether a skyscraper was really needed at the location selected. On the other hand, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has repeatedly refused to commit himself publicly, saying it was a matter for city residents and authorities to decide.
Moreover, it was recently revealed at a Public Chamber meeting that the ground by the banks of the Neva River is not ideal for skyscraper construction. At the same time, according to a number of sources, the environmental watchdog, Rostekhdanzor, refused to endorse the project. Other sources say Gazprom itself is ready to give up on the site earmarked for the project because improving soil strength there could prove very costly. The company has already spent 7.2 billion rubles on the project.
Matviyenko’s statement in effect amounted to a victory for all those who came together to protect the city’s architectural heritage. Over the past five years this has grown into the strongest opposition movement in St. Petersburg.
“This is a real turning point and it has been brought about by the pressure exerted by the movement dedicated to protecting the city’s architectural heritage,” Maxim Reznik, St. Petersburg’s Yabloko leader, commented on the governor’s words. “As far back as 2006, we suggested alternative sites for the skyscraper. We do not need to disfigure the established and splendid past in order to build something new.”
Izvestia
Immigrants swept under the counter
Non-citizens will no longer be allowed to work as vendors in Russian street kiosks. The new policy, due to take effect from January 1, follows an earlier ban forbidding immigrants from selling alcohol, including beer, and pharmaceuticals. Most analysts support the move, while doubting how effective it will prove to be.
The resolution, signed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on November 27, will not affect shop owners and applies solely to hired salespeople.
This is not the first government crackdown on immigrants employed in retail. Quotas were introduced in 2007, after massive inter-ethnic violence flared in the Karelian city of Kondopoga from a salesperson-customer conflict. Analysts also suggested that the government was in fact trying to oust Georgians from the Russian retail sector (in view of the worsening relations with Georgia). Opinion polls at that time showed that Russians largely supported this change.
This policy is already being applied, said Igor Kachalov from the consultancy Kachalov and Colleagues. Many business owners prefer hiring Slavic looking women well over 30 to work in their kiosks, because they evoke more confidence. But no one seems to care if the shop is actually owned by a foreigner. Incidentally, sociologists also use female interviewers aged between 45-65, he added.
He denied any potential adverse effects of this policy, while highlighting an obvious advantage for the nation’s health and safety: when buying medicine, one has to be confident that the pharmacist speaks the same language.
“There have been cases of elderly women ending up buying the wrong medicines because of the pharmacist’s poor Russian and their own poor eyesight. No refunds can be offered on medicines purchased,” Kachalov explained.
Health isn’t this policy’s focus, said Finam analyst Alexander Osin. The government’s monetary measures are failing to curb inflation because globally there is too much excessive liquidity. Russia’s only option is to follow China’s lead and regulate trade.
To cut prices, the government has to support the retail sector. How? Possibly by excluding immigrants who in any case channel all cash they earn out of Russia. This should boost the number of local taxpayers and benefit the national economy.
The number of immigrants working in retail is negligible, argues Alexei Zakharov, head of the SuperJob online headhunting service, estimating their number at 25,000 nationwide. “There are more immigrants at one construction site outside Moscow than in all the kiosks in Moscow,” he said adding this policy won’t affect the market.
Other analysts believe this move is yet another government policy targeting small- retailers to support hypermarkets, which in any case don’t tend to use salespeople. As for immigrant cashiers and cleaners, customers do not seem at all bothered by them.
However, those who want to see all kiosks swept off Russian streets and ardent advocates of Western-style hypermarkets are forgetting that convenience stores are just as popular in the West as megamalls.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
