E/CN.4/1995/34/Add.1
page 3
Introduction
1.
At the fiftieth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
the representative of the Russian Federation announced the intention of his
Government to invite the Special Rapporteur appointed by the Commission on
Human Rights to examine questions relevant to torture to visit the country
(see E/CN.4/1994/SR.29); by a note verbale dated 4 April 1994 the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs formally extended an invitation to the Special Rapporteur to
visit Moscow to familiarize himself on the spot with the pace of the
court-system reform and domestic measures to safeguard the rights of convicts.
By a letter dated 10 May 1994, the Centre for Human Rights informed the
Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office at
Geneva that the Special Rapporteur would carry out this mission during the
second half of July and, in that connection, transmitted a copy of the
standard terms of reference for fact-finding missions by special
rapporteurs/representatives of the Commission on Human Rights. The visit took
place from 17 to 28 July; it included meetings, discussions and visits in
Moscow (from 17 to 23 July and from 27 to 28 July), and meetings, discussions
and visits in St. Petersburg (from 24 to 26 July). The Special Rapporteur was
accompanied by a staff member of the Centre for Human Rights and two
interpreters provided by the United Nations Office at Geneva.
2.
As noted, the visit of the Special Rapporteur was at the invitation of
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs; officials within the Department of
International Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs indicated three major reasons for this initiative:
(a)
The Special Rapporteur could provide concrete recommendations on
how to address the serious problems that currently exist in the judicial/penal
system of the Russian Federation;
(b)
The report of the Special Rapporteur could have a salutary effect
on the establishment of a national consensus in the area of human rights; and
(c)
The invitation to the Special Rapporteur would demonstrate that
human rights issues are a matter of international cooperation as well as
concern and that the utilization of such supervisory mechanisms does not
constitute interference in a State’s internal affairs.
3.
Within all the ministries with which the Special Rapporteur dealt, there
was a general awareness and recognition of the main elements of the problem.
All officials emphasized the transparency of the current regime and their
willingness to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur to ensure the
success of his fact-finding mission. In this context, it should be noted that
the Department of International Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights
played a crucial role by helping to coordinate all aspects of the mission.
4.
Accordingly, for the Special Rapporteur the mission was a cooperative
exercise aimed at seeking solutions to problems of mutual concern. It should
be noted, however, that the Special Rapporteur did not view the mission as one
of prison inspection.