In our opinion, the eviction decisions completely contradict the current laws and theConstitution of Russian Federation. The position of the Podolsk Court is the direct result ofexplicitly stated policy of the executive branch of Moscow and Moscow region. In particular, themayor of Moscow Yu.M. Luzhkov openly states that his goal is to create such conditions inMoscow region that the refugees would run from the region.
In accordance with the Russian laws, the decision of the court has force after the decision ofthe first hearing court is upheld by the Court of Appeals. After that, an injunction can be issuedfor two reasons
- if an administrative review is requested and the reviewing body believes injunction isnecessary for objective consideration of the caseif the lower court decides that there important grounds for delaying the implementation ofthe decision.
1. Nikulin, Sergei Mikhailovich.
- Retired, disabled veteran of WWII. The eviction case was considered by Podolsk Municipal
Lawyer: Ia.I. Libin. 2. Mandrusov family, 2 persons.
- Mandrusov R.M. - retired, second category disability; his wife Mandrusova A.A. - retired.
Lawyer: I. M. Alamaz'yan. 3. Shvets family, 4 persons (relatives of Mandrusovs).
- Shvets G.G. - head of the family; his wife Shvets O.R. and 2 daughters, one of whom is
Lawyer: I. M. Alamaz'yan. 4. Kagramanian family, 2 persons.
- Kagramanian A.A. - retired, veteran, has diabetes; his wife Kagramanian A.A. - retired,
Lawyers: A.E. Iakovlev (first and appeal hearings), I. M. Alamaz'yan (review). 5. Babaiants family, 4 persons (relatives of Kagramanians).
- Babaiants A.U. - head of the family; his wife Kagramanian R.A., two children of school
Lawyers: A.E. Iakovlev (first and appeal hearings), I. M. Alamaz'yan (review). 6. Abramian G.A.
- Widow (husband died in Troitsk in 1995 as a result of traffic accident). Children 3 and 9
Lawyer: A.E. Iakovlev. 7. Fedotov family, 3 persons.
- Fedotova T.A. - widow (husband died in 1994 in Troitsk), two children of school age. The
Lawyer: I.M. Alamaz'yan 8. Fedotov family, 3 persons (relatives of Fedotova T.A.).
- Fedotova E.G. - retired, second category disability; her daughter Fedotova I.A.- retired,
Lawyer: I.M. Alamaz'yan 9. Proskuriakov family, 3 persons.
- Proskuriakova L.V. - divorced, two children: one son is student in the medical school and
Lawyer: I.M. Alamaz'yan 10. Chulkov family, 3 persons.
- Chulkov A.V. - divorced, two children of school age. The case of eviction without
- Yupin V.G. - head of the family; his wife Yupina N.I., two
Lawyer: I. M. Alamaz'yan. 12. Sarkisova L.S.
- Retired, evicted without compensation in 1996. Only now, more than a year after eviction,
Lawyer: I. M. Alamaz'yan.
Appendix 1.
Legal details on some cases of the refugees in Vatutinki as of April1997
- 1.The Kagramanian family, 2 pensioners (60 and 63 years old);2.The Abramian family, a widow with 2 children 8 and 3 years old;3.The Shvets family, 4 persons: the parents and 2 daughters, the elder one is an invalid, mental disease;4.The Mandrusov family, 2 pensioners one of which is an invalid, mental disease.
To date the situation with the listed families is as follows:
- 1. The hearing of Asya and Alexander Kagramanian case took place on 16 Dec., 1996. The court found for Vatutinki administration and Migration Service of Moscow Region. The judge was O.E.Grankova, Podolsk (Moscow Region)Court. The decision was unsuccessfully appealed in Moscow Region Court and, again unsuccessfully, in the Presidium of Moscow Region Court. The lawyer whodefended this family was A.N. Yakovlev from Podolsk; I.M.Kaganova (The AndreiSakharov Foundation and The Civic Action Committee), as representative ofcommunity, took part in the hearing in Podolsk as well as in Moscow Region Court. A.V.Babushkin, the chairman of The Committee For Civic Rights and themember of The Russian Federation President Public Chamber presented theinterests of this family in Moscow Region Court.
At the hearing the Kagramanian said that they had visited Novokuibyshevsk(a little town along the Volga River) and found out that the housing offered to them by the authorities of migration service during the preliminary hearing, had been already occupied.
They did not refuse to settle in other region, but only asked about any housing in one town with their two daughters: Ramela Kagramanian and Greta Abramian who also lived in Vatutinki (about the cases of Ramela Kagramanian and Greta Abramian see below). Their request was denied both by the representativeof migration service and the presiding judge.
The evicting decision was confirmed by the appeal instance in spite of the presented documents that the alternative housing in Novokuibyshevsk had been occupied at the moment of its offering.
Moreover, all the plaints concerning eviction of the refugees are based on the Federal law about refugees. Putting aside the possibility to use this law to evict refugees from the granted shelter, I would like to point out that the Kagramanian family does not fall under the ruling of this law.
From the Moscow Region Department of Internal Affairs the Kagramanian obtained a confirmation that according the law "On the Citizenship in Russian Federation" beginning from 1992 they were the RF citizens "as the former Soviet Union citizens who were permanent residents in Russian Federation at the time when the law came into force...".
It seems reasonable, that all migrants from Baku, who permanently livein Russian Federation beginning from 1990 and were settled here according theRussian Federation Government Decision in correspondence with this law must beregarded as RF citizens. But it hardly can be proved, since in spite of the Federal law only the persons who have the registration ("propiska") somewhere in Russian Federation are considered by the Ministry of Internal Affairsauthorities as permanent residents.
It is very difficult to get "propiska" if a person does not have apermanent housing. So, the survivors of the anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku wholegally live in Russian Federation beginning from 1990, are not recognized as RF citizens.
But it is not the case with the Kagramanian family. In 1992, prior theyreunited with their daughters in Vatutinki, they lived in Krasnodar region anddid have a temporary registration. And this was the reason why their citizenship in Russian Federation was confirmed. But then in this case the judge in no wayhad the right to use the law which regulated the relations between refugees and the State. She had to use the general housing legislation which did not give her the possibility to evict anybody without proper housing. However, in the case in question all the legal regulations were ruined.
2. At the preliminary hearing on 10, Oct. 1996, Greta Abramian (thedaughter of Asya and Alexander Kagramanian, see above) was proposed a flat in a new house in a little settlement Duminichi, Kaluga region. Her lawyer, as wellas her parents, is A.N.Yakovlev.
As we knew from the people who visited Duminichi to get the information about the house in question, the house was not finished and nobody knew when it would be. At that moment the Federal Migration Service had no money to continue the construction, but nevertheless this service continued to send refugees to live in this unfinished house.
Greta Abramian did not agree with the proposition and asked about ahousing in one town with her parents, namely in Novokuibyshevsk (Then nobodyknew that the flats set aside to her parents were occupied.) Her request wasdeclined. But, fortuitously, it was possible to delay the hearing witch wasplanned on 16, Dec. 1996 simultaneously with the hearing of her parents case.
The hearing was delayed some times and finally in March, 1997, whenthe eviction decision of her parents was confirmed by Moscow Region Court, she was proposed to get an apartment in ... Novokuibyshevsk. And this apartment turned out to be free! Till now people, involved in this case, have no reasonable explanation why this was not done simultaneously with the proposition of the housing in Novokuibyshevsk to her relatives and why their apartments were occupied (and it can be proved!) and the last one was free.
Usually, when a refugee gets an apartment from Federal Migration Service, he does not get an authorization to this apartment (in Russian "order"). Infact, he only rent this apartment and cannot use it at his own discretion. In Greta Abramian case another miracle happened. Not only she got herauthorization to the apartment, but became the owner of this apartment.
The hearing of her case is planed on May, 28. I hope that the sides willcome to an agreement.
May be, the result of Greta Abramian's case was only a combination of somefortuitous circumstances. But, may be, it was influenced by the efforts of some people from non-government organizations involved in the defending of the Vatutinki refugee rights (namely: Svetlana Ganushkina, The Civic Action Committee, Boris Al'tshuler, Moscow Human Rights Center, and me, Inna Kaganova, Andrei Sakharov Foundation), who during this period appealed the Federal Migration Service housing politics, contesting the methods used by FMS and itsright to evict people without any housing.
In particular, an appeal on the violation of the constitution rights of the refugees was sent to Moscow Region Office of Public Prosecutor. In thisletter we showed that the papers presented to the court by Migration Serviceof Moscow Region were often severely falsified, that this service did notundertake the proper efforts in housing the migrants from Baku prior appeal tothe court.
We got an answer written for form only. It was explained to us that in spite of the presented evidences, the Moscow Region Public Prosecutor did notfind the violation of the refugee rights. But we know, that there was acheck-up of the Migration Service of Moscow Region. And may be as a result ofthis check-up the authorities of this service used Greta Abramian as anexample to show that they do work in accordance with the law.
In any case, now the widow with two children has the flat of her own. Andthis can be assumed as a little step in the direction of solving the problemwith the Vatutinki refugees.
3. The case of other two families, the Shvets and the Mandrusov, isone of the most hard in Vatutinki. Orleana Shvets is a daughter of RakhmilMandrusov (70 years old, mental disease invalid). Orleana has two daughters. Her elder daughter, Yana, 19 years old, is a mental disease invalid too. GeorgiiShvets, Orleana's husband, is an engineer. He works in one of Russian Academyof Science Institutes in Troitsk. He is the only person in this family of six,who can earn their living. Rakhmil Mandrusov and Yana Shvets must be underpermanent medical control. These people have no possibility to leave the placewhere they live more than 7 years and move to a new place without guaranteedwork and medical help.
The lawyer, who defends these people, is I.M.Alamaz'yan. I.Kaganovarepresents this families on behalf of The Civic Action Committee and The Andrei SakharovFoundation.
The situation of the Shvets family is understood by the administration of the Institute where Georgii Shvets works. In autumn Elena Bonner (The Andrei SakharovFoundation) and Svetlana Gannushkina (The Civic Action Committee) sent letters to the Institutedirector, the academician Matveev, where they asked to help the Shvets.
Georgii Shvets is an experienced engineer. The Institute authorities would be willing to have him permanently. Therefore, the Institute proposed to Migration Service of Moscow Region to cooperate with their efforts and to jointly buy an apartment for Shvets in Troitsk. They asked to provide the Institute with money which in any case would be spent onto this family housing in any otherregion. The extra sum, if needed, would be paid by the Institute. (TheInstitute is in very hard financial situation now and cannot pay all the sumitself.) This proposal was rejected.The members of the family one by one were severely ill during the winter.And it is the main reason why there was no hearing of their case yet. Sometimes it was possible to delay the hearing with the help of journalists andrepresentatives of some non-government organizations. For example, in the middle of March we had a TV group ("NTV" canal) in the court. At the last hearing inApril we had very big "support-group". There were Human Rights Watch/Helsinki and Open Society Institute representatives, M.G.Arutyunov, the president ofThe International Protection of Human Rights, the journalist from Podolskbroadcasting program, members of Podolsk cell of Democratic Choice ofRussia (Gaidar) Party and some other people.
In both cases the presiding judge, as in the case of the Kagramanianfamily it was O.E.Grankova, found an excuse and delayed the hearing. The nexthearing is fixed on May, 14. And again we are planning to organize a strong"support-group".
But for these delays the family would be already evicted. However, I would like to point out that the slowing of the hearing gave another positive result.
At the very beginning of the hearings the judge Grankova was openly hostile to the refugees. She was sure that the refugees must be evicted and even she had no strong legal base for the pronouncement of eviction decisions, she was trying to do her best.
However, facing one refugee family after another, being presented the details of their stories, the methods migration services use to deal with refugees, it seems that she has understood the horror of the situation. In anycase, her behavior changed. And now she is our ally when the question of thehearing delaying arises.The main role in the judge attitude change belongs to the lawyer, Inna Melikovna Alamaz'yan. She constantly works with the judge, presents documents and facts, always correct and shows high professional level.There is reason to believe that extra-judicial pressure was put on thecourt. Or, may be, the judge is influenced by the negative attitude of MoscowRegion Court to refugees. In any case we clearly understand that the judge isafraid to turn the eviction orders down.
On 16 April an appeal against one of the regional court's evictiondecision was satisfied by Moscow Region Court. The case was returned toregional court for reconsideration. It was also the case of refugeesfrom Baku who live in Moscow Region.
As we know, Podolsk judges attentively watch the development of thesituation. It is difficult to believe, but there is a faint hope that thementioned case would be a turn point in eviction cases of refugees fromBaku.
Summarizing the review of four cases I would liketo say, that some results were obtained. Namely, The Abramian family got anapartment; the Shvets and the Mandrusov hearings were delayed. We'll proceedwith the efforts to help the Kagramanian.
1. The Kagramanian - Babaiants family.
- The hearing of Ramela Kagramanian, the
We plan the further appeal of their eviction decision. On the otherhand we'll try to force the Federal Migration Service to give them a housing.
May be this can be done taking into account that at the appeal hearing themigration service representative said, that this service would continue to work with them. May be this statement can be used in court when the time of eviction decision execution would be discussed.
The families decided to change the lawyer. Now their lawyer isI.M.Alamaz'yan, who helped them during the previous hearings too and has shownherself more helpful than A.N.Yakovlev.
2. Sergei Mikhailovich Nikulin, 75 years old, disabled veteran of WWII.
- On May 20, 1996, Podolsk court judge Kudashev turned down the eviction
The administration of Troitsk would be glad to help Nikulin as World Warinvalid. But according to the rules he must be permanently registered in Troitsk to be put on the list of townspeople who are in need of dwelling. According the law after the court decision he has the right to be registered in Troitsk. ButVatutinki director L.Sukhorukov does not supply Nikulin with the papers heneeds for registration.
Nikulin will appeal to the court. The lawyer, who will help him, is YakovLibin from Troitsk. He is an experienced civil lawyer who helps a lot toVatutinki refugees.
3. Fedotov family
- This is a very hard case, represented by the lawyer is I.M.Alamaz'yan.
- a. A grandmother - El'za Fedotova, 65 years old. She is a grave invalid and hardly can walkon crutches.b. El'za Fedotova's daughter Inna Fedotova is an invalid too. Inna has no husband, but has a daughter Alla. Alla now is a student of Moscow University. In spite ofterrible situation in her family, Alla with help from nobody entered the university. She isstudding mathematics and she is an excellent student.c. Other Elza's daughter, Tat'yana, is a widow with two school-children.Tat'yana's husbanddied from cancer here, in Troitsk, three years ago.
Of course, we plan to appeal this cruel decision. But the results are unpredictable.
The situation with this family is more complicated than with others due to the fact that all its members beginning from 1990 suffer from the severe depression.
Appendix 2
Details on Hearings as of June 1997
- 1. The hearing for Shvets took place on May 14 (the lawyer was I.M.Alamaz'yan).Orleana Shvets repeated that her family could not move in some other region,because they had a sick daughter (mental decease) who needed the permanentmedical help. She again asked to help them to get any housing somewhere near Troitsk. Herappeal was rejected and the decision of judge Grankova was to evict them without any housing.
It is interesting that after the year during which this judge wasdealing with the refugee cases, she understood the situation very well. It isobvious that she understands that her decisions were not based on the law. Nowshe is helping us to delay the time of her own eviction decision execution.
Unofficially, the court staff openly said that extra-judicial pressure was put on the judges. In last weeks the situation worsen after Moscow mayor Luzhkov declarations that refugees have to be thrown out from Moscow and Moscowregion.
Now the Shvets family is preparing their appeal to Moscow region court.
2. The hearing for Mandrusov was delayed since Rakhmil' Mandrusov was severelyill. The date of the hearing is not planed yet. Judge Grankova said: "Icannot evict the dying man. He lived in Vatutinki more than 7 years. Nothingwill happen if he stay here an extra year." We are only afraid that under the Vatutinki administration pressure she'll change her mind.
3. The time of eviction decision execution for Kagramanian family was planed onJune 3. On May 26 the application about the delaying of the date was given to judge Grankova. This application has to be examined in the court hearing.The date of the hearing is June 17. The family is planning to appeal to theSupreme Court. We need extra 200$ to cover the expenses for this case. Now thelawyer of the family is I.M.Alamaz'yan.