Cases against refugees were started by Vatutinki Center. The plaintiff was seeking eviction
decision in all cases. Eviction without compensation means no offer of alternative living
arrangements.
In our opinion, the eviction decisions completely contradict the current laws and the
Constitution of Russian Federation. The position of the Podolsk Court is the direct result of
explicitly stated policy of the executive branch of Moscow and Moscow region. In particular, the
mayor of Moscow Yu.M. Luzhkov openly states that his goal is to create such conditions in
Moscow 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 of
the first hearing court is upheld by the Court of Appeals. After that, an injunction can be issued
for two reasons
At present, our lawyer I.M. Alamaz'yan was able to submit administrative review requests to
the Presidium of Moscow Region Court and get an injunction against any evictions.
Unfortunately, there is little hope for eventual just decision. For example, assistant chairman of
the Presidium of the Court openly says that after some delay for decorum they will upheld the
eviction decision unless there is a change of Moscow region government policy with regard to
refugees.
From the very beginning we understood very well that most probably the
court would not turn down the eviction demands, so we tried to delay the
hearings as far as possible. We planed to use the extra time for founding any
other solution of the problem except eviction without housing.
- 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 who
defended this family was A.N. Yakovlev from Podolsk; I.M.Kaganova (The Andrei
Sakharov Foundation and The Civic Action Committee), as representative of
community, 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 the
member of The Russian Federation President Public Chamber presented the
interests 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 representative
of 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 live
in Russian Federation beginning from 1990 and were settled here according the
Russian Federation Government Decision in correspondence with this law must be
regarded 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 Affairs
authorities as permanent residents.
It is very difficult to get "propiska" if a person does not have a
permanent housing. So, the survivors of the anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku who
legally 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 they
reunited with their daughters in Vatutinki, they lived in Krasnodar region and
did 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 way
had 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 (the
daughter 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 well
as 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 a
housing in one town with her parents, namely in Novokuibyshevsk (Then nobody
knew that the flats set aside to her parents were occupied.) Her request was
declined. But, fortuitously, it was possible to delay the hearing witch was
planned on 16, Dec. 1996 simultaneously with the hearing of her parents case.
The hearing was delayed some times and finally in March, 1997, when
the 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"). In
fact, he only rent this apartment and cannot use it at his own discretion.
In Greta Abramian case another miracle happened. Not only she got her
authorization 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 will
come to an agreement.
May be, the result of Greta Abramian's case was only a combination of some
fortuitous 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 its
right 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 this
letter we showed that the papers presented to the court by Migration Service
of Moscow Region were often severely falsified, that this service did not
undertake the proper efforts in housing the migrants from Baku prior appeal to
the 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 not
find the violation of the refugee rights. But we know, that there was a
check-up of the Migration Service of Moscow Region. And may be as a result of
this check-up the authorities of this service used Greta Abramian as an
example 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. And
this can be assumed as a little step in the direction of solving the problem
with the Vatutinki refugees.
- 3. The case of other two families, the Shvets and the Mandrusov, is
one of the most hard in Vatutinki. Orleana Shvets is a daughter of Rakhmil
Mandrusov (70 years old, mental disease invalid). Orleana has two
daughters. Her elder daughter, Yana, 19 years old, is a mental disease invalid too. Georgii
Shvets, Orleana's husband, is an engineer. He works in one of Russian Academy
of 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 under
permanent medical control. These people have no possibility to leave the place
where they live more than 7 years and move to a new place without guaranteed
work and medical help.
The lawyer, who defends these people, is I.M.Alamaz'yan. I.Kaganova
represents this families on behalf of The Civic Action Committee and The Andrei Sakharov
Foundation.
The situation of the Shvets family is understood by the administration of
the Institute where Georgii Shvets works. In autumn Elena Bonner (The Andrei Sakharov
Foundation) and Svetlana Gannushkina (The Civic Action Committee) sent letters to the Institute
director, 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 other
region. The extra sum, if needed, would be paid by the Institute. (The
Institute is in very hard financial situation now and cannot pay all the sum
itself.) 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. Some
times it was possible to delay the hearing with the help of journalists and
representatives 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 in
April we had very big "support-group". There were Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki and Open Society Institute representatives, M.G.Arutyunov, the president of
The International Protection of Human Rights, the journalist from Podolsk
broadcasting program, members of Podolsk cell of Democratic Choice of
Russia (Gaidar) Party and some other people.
In both cases the presiding judge, as in the case of the Kagramanian
family it was O.E.Grankova, found an excuse and delayed the hearing. The next
hearing 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 any
case, her behavior changed. And now she is our ally when the question of the
hearing 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 the
court. Or, may be, the judge is influenced by the negative attitude of Moscow
Region Court to refugees. In any case we clearly understand that the judge is
afraid to turn the eviction orders down.
On 16 April an appeal against one of the regional court's eviction
decision was satisfied by Moscow Region Court. The case was returned to
regional court for reconsideration. It was also the case of refugees
from Baku who live in Moscow Region.
As we know, Podolsk judges attentively watch the development of the
situation. It is difficult to believe, but there is a faint hope that the
mentioned case would be a turn point in eviction cases of refugees from
Baku.
Summarizing the review of four cases I would like
to say, that some results were obtained. Namely, The Abramian family got an
apartment; the Shvets and the Mandrusov hearings were delayed. We'll proceed
with the efforts to help the Kagramanian.
ASF Home Page