Integration monitor is a daily Latvian press digest on ethnic minority and society integration issues. The Monitor reviews the biggest Latvian dailies: Diena, Latvijas Avize, Neatkariga (in Latvian language), Vesti Segodnya (in Russian language). In specific cases other information sources are used. Latvian Centre for Human Rights is not responsible for information published by the media.

Press Report

The Russian parliamentary delegation laid an accent on human rights problems and Rubiks' case. According to Chairman of the Saeima Committee for Foreign Affairs Antons Seiksts, the Russian side was suffering the "big brother" syndrome. Head of the delegation Vladimir Lukin ("Yabloko"("Apple") says the main problems are the low intensity of relations between the two countries and "inadequate" treatment of noncitizens. Sergey Glotov ("Narodovlastiye" ("People's Power") named the human rights problems as the main subject for further discussions. In that connection he also mentioned 63 differences between the rights of citizens and noncitizens. Mr. Seiksts argued the point saying that by criticizing Latvia's laws Russia's representatives also criticized the Council of Europe, the laws being approved by that international body. Members of the Saeima Human Rights Committee dispelled the accusations of a deliberately planned discrimination of Russians in Latvia. Antons Seiksts told the press that he had expected Russian parliament members to be better informed of the situation in Latvia. Speaking about security issues, Mr. Lukin said the efforts to join NATO were contradicting Latvia's national interests. He said that Latvia would never be admitted to NATO and stressed that Russia was against the expansion of the block. He advised Latvia to consider a system that would allow both Russia and Latvia to "feel secure". Both parties were satisfied by the fact that the dialogue had been started by defining the problems of mutual interest. Valdis Birkavs and Vladimir Lukin during their meeting stressed the importance of making practical steps toward resolving the existing problems.

The Russian parliamentary delegation laid an accent on human rights problems and Rubiks' case. According to Chairman of the Saeima Committee for Foreign Affairs Antons Seiksts, the Russian side was suffering the "big brother" syndrome. Head of the delegation Vladimir Lukin ("Yabloko"("Apple") says the main problems are the low intensity of relations between the two countries and "inadequate" treatment of noncitizens. Sergey Glotov ("Narodovlastiye" ("People's Power") named the human rights problems as the main subject for further discussions. In that connection he also mentioned 63 differences between the rights of citizens and noncitizens. Mr. Seiksts argued the point saying that by criticizing Latvia's laws Russia's representatives also criticized the Council of Europe, the laws being approved by that international body. Members of the Saeima Human Rights Committee dispelled the accusations of a deliberately planned discrimination of Russians in Latvia. Antons Seiksts told the press that he had expected Russian parliament members to be better informed of the situation in Latvia. Speaking about security issues, Mr. Lukin said the efforts to join NATO were contradicting Latvia's national interests. He said that Latvia would never be admitted to NATO and stressed that Russia was against the expansion of the block. He advised Latvia to consider a system that would allow both Russia and Latvia to "feel secure". Both parties were satisfied by the fact that the dialogue had been started by defining the problems of mutual interest. Valdis Birkavs and Vladimir Lukin during their meeting stressed the importance of making practical steps toward resolving the existing problems. Diena, Neatkariga, SM Segodnya

Before starting the official program of its visit, the Duma delegation had a meeting human right activists, prominent social figures, and representatives of war veteran organizations. The issues discussed at the meeting included education and the rights of noncitizens. The Latvian Human Right Committee presented documents on human rights violations including 32 unlawful deportations. Some participants of the meeting called upon Russia to connect oil transit through Latvia with cultural, educational, and economic aid to Latvia's Russians.

Before starting the official program of its visit, the Duma delegation had a meeting human right activists, prominent social figures, and representatives of war veteran organizations. The issues discussed at the meeting included education and the rights of noncitizens. The Latvian Human Right Committee presented documents on human rights violations including 32 unlawful deportations. Some participants of the meeting called upon Russia to connect oil transit through Latvia with cultural, educational, and economic aid to Latvia's Russians. SM Segodnya

Russia's defence Institute Analyst Anatoly Surikov, believed to be one of the authors of the country's defence doctrine, made a extraordinary statement in a recent interview. He said that the joining of NATO by one of the three Baltic states would inevitably result in Russia invading the countries. He added that the Baltic states would still retain their independence after new governments were formed and Russian troops were withdrawn.

Russia's defence Institute Analyst Anatoly Surikov, believed to be one of the authors of the country's defence doctrine, made a extraordinary statement in a recent interview. He said that the joining of NATO by one of the three Baltic states would inevitably result in Russia invading the countries. He added that the Baltic states would still retain their independence after new governments were formed and Russian troops were withdrawn. SM

Russia's representatives at the Baltic Sea and European security Seminar in St. Petersburg stressed that NATO expansion would be unacceptable to Russia irrespective of who won the upcoming presidential elections. According to "DIENA's" observer Nordic Countries were concerned about Russia's approach while Finland's representative made it clear that the country might review its defence policies and could under certain circumstance join NATO. Among alternative schemes suggested at the seminar was the use of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Baltic Council potentials to a full extend instead of discussing a possible admission of Baltic states to NATO. Other concepts included concentrating on the role of the OSCE and forming the Council for European Security with the following disbanding of NATO.

Russia's representatives at the Baltic Sea and European security Seminar in St. Petersburg stressed that NATO expansion would be unacceptable to Russia irrespective of who won the upcoming presidential elections. According to "DIENA's" observer Nordic Countries were concerned about Russia's approach while Finland's representative made it clear that the country might review its defence policies and could under certain circumstance join NATO. Among alternative schemes suggested at the seminar was the use of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Baltic Council potentials to a full extend instead of discussing a possible admission of Baltic states to NATO. Other concepts included concentrating on the role of the OSCE and forming the Council for European Security with the following disbanding of NATO. Diena

According to "NEATKARIGA", Russian Embassy officials in private conversations about the number of Russian citizens residing in Latvia mention the figure of 50,000. 6,000 took part in the Duma elections while only 3,000 are registered with the CID. This allows to assume that thousands of Latvia's inhabitants hold both Russian passports and passports issued in Latvia.

According to "NEATKARIGA", Russian Embassy officials in private conversations about the number of Russian citizens residing in Latvia mention the figure of 50,000. 6,000 took part in the Duma elections while only 3,000 are registered with the CID. This allows to assume that thousands of Latvia's inhabitants hold both Russian passports and passports issued in Latvia.

"Tevzemei un Brivibai" Secretary General Aigars Kimenis while analyzing the "conflict" between the Ministry of the Interior and the CID points at different interpretation of the law by those institutions. He compares four groups handled differently by the Ministry and the CID. 1) Persons enlisted on the Latvian territory and demobilized after July 1, 1992. In this case the CID applies Article 1 Paragraph 4 of Decree # 266 by the Cabinet of Ministers of October 8, 1991, updated by Article 3 of Decree # 355 by the Cabinet of Ministers of August 25, 1992. According to the said documents the Law "On Foreigners and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia" should be applied to this category. The Ministry of the Interior applies Article 1 of the Law "On Former USSR Citizens not having Citizenship of Latvia or of any other State" demanding to include the group into the Register of inhabitants through a general procedure. 2) Foreigners, mainly Russian citizens, with court decrees in their favor, who do not have all documents required for receiving a residence permit. The CID believes these persons not to be exempt of providing all required documents as determined by "The Regulations on the Term of Residence and Procedure for the issuing of Permanent Residence permits". The Ministry ignores the requirements. 3) Persons who had propiska in Latvia before July 1, 1992, and repatriated or left for the third country. According to the CID, such persons can enter Latvia only according to the Law "On Foreigners' and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia". Part One of Article 1 of the Law "On the Status of Former USSR Citizens..." can be interpreted in the context of Articles 1 and 2 of the Decree "On the Procedure of the Coming into Force of the Law "On Foreigners' and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia". This means that the law on Former USSR Citizens applies to individuals who had propiska in Latvia on July 1, 1992. While the Ministry applies the Law to all persons who had propiska in Latvia any time before the date. 4) Members of Russian servicemen's families, whose entrance to Latvia was not initially connected with the distribution of Russian troops, and who concluded marriages with Russian servicemen, left Latvia, and later entered the country already as a part of the army contingent. The CID believes the status of these persons top be depend on the nature of their last entry (Article 1, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3 of the Law "On Former USSR Citizens..."). The Ministry of the Interior insist on taking into consideration their first entry. Mr. Kimenis stresses that the Ministry of the Interior interprets all arguable points in favor of the "colonists" and insists on stopping "the attempts to interfere with the work of the CID."

"Tevzemei un Brivibai" Secretary General Aigars Kimenis while analyzing the "conflict" between the Ministry of the Interior and the CID points at different interpretation of the law by those institutions. He compares four groups handled differently by the Ministry and the CID. 1) Persons enlisted on the Latvian territory and demobilized after July 1, 1992. In this case the CID applies Article 1 Paragraph 4 of Decree # 266 by the Cabinet of Ministers of October 8, 1991, updated by Article 3 of Decree # 355 by the Cabinet of Ministers of August 25, 1992. According to the said documents the Law "On Foreigners and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia" should be applied to this category. The Ministry of the Interior applies Article 1 of the Law "On Former USSR Citizens not having Citizenship of Latvia or of any other State" demanding to include the group into the Register of inhabitants through a general procedure. 2) Foreigners, mainly Russian citizens, with court decrees in their favor, who do not have all documents required for receiving a residence permit. The CID believes these persons not to be exempt of providing all required documents as determined by "The Regulations on the Term of Residence and Procedure for the issuing of Permanent Residence permits". The Ministry ignores the requirements. 3) Persons who had propiska in Latvia before July 1, 1992, and repatriated or left for the third country. According to the CID, such persons can enter Latvia only according to the Law "On Foreigners' and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia". Part One of Article 1 of the Law "On the Status of Former USSR Citizens..." can be interpreted in the context of Articles 1 and 2 of the Decree "On the Procedure of the Coming into Force of the Law "On Foreigners' and Stateless Persons' Entrance to and Stay in the Republic of Latvia". This means that the law on Former USSR Citizens applies to individuals who had propiska in Latvia on July 1, 1992. While the Ministry applies the Law to all persons who had propiska in Latvia any time before the date. 4) Members of Russian servicemen's families, whose entrance to Latvia was not initially connected with the distribution of Russian troops, and who concluded marriages with Russian servicemen, left Latvia, and later entered the country already as a part of the army contingent. The CID believes the status of these persons top be depend on the nature of their last entry (Article 1, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3 of the Law "On Former USSR Citizens..."). The Ministry of the Interior insist on taking into consideration their first entry. Mr. Kimenis stresses that the Ministry of the Interior interprets all arguable points in favor of the "colonists" and insists on stopping "the attempts to interfere with the work of the CID." Diena