Corruption and human rights in contemporary Russia. Interrelations between corruption and violation of citizens' rights and freedoms

Corruption and human rights in contemporary Russia. Interrelations between

corruption and violation of citizens' rights and freedoms Abridged translation into English © Working Research Group (Editorial Board) © Center for Democracy and Human Rights Development Compilation editors: Vladimir Rimsky and Andrey Kalikh Working Research Group (Editorial Board) and authors of the Report: Valentin Gefter (Human Rights Institute), Yuri Dzhibladze (Center for Democracy and Human Rights Development), Andrey Kalikh (Center for Democracy and Human Rights Development), Natella Kolosova (Higher School of Economics), Elena Panfilova (Transparency International – Russia), Vladimir Rimsky (INDEM Foundation). The Report has been published by the Center for Democracy and Human Rights Development in the course of the project kindly supported by the National Endowment for Democracy. The full version of the Report can be found at the websites of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights Development: http://www.demokratia.ru and the INDEM Foundation: http://www.indem.ru. Contact: Andrey Kalikh, Research Coordinator - [email protected].

2

Abstract

After 20 years of reforms, Russia still has a very poor record of corruption. It is generally recognised that corruption in Russia is a systemic problem and as such negatively affects not only the country’s economy and the performance of public administration, but also undermines observation of the human rights. Russian human rights organisations report about increasing number of rights abuses in all areas of the public life and state institutions. They claim that corruption has been the fundament in the majority of cases of human rights violations. This working paper is aimed at studying the linkage and dependence between the level of corruption and the number of human rights violations in contemporary Russia.

3

Introduction

Not only does corruption hamper economic development and affect the performance

of the state apparatus, but it also exerts a direct and ruthless impact on the welfare of the society and each individual, presenting a favorable environment for the growth of discrimination, social inequality, and violation of the rights of citizens.

In today's Russia, violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens as well as various manifestations of corruption, have become widely spread illegal practices. Both corruption and violation of human rights and freedoms disintegrate society, motivating each of us to often resolve our own problems at the expense of others not thinking about the possible damage to others; reducing the level of solidarity, mutual support, and trust; hampering joint solution of social problems. They destroy state authorities as well, corrupting them and drastically reducing their efficiency.

The motives for corruption and violation of human rights may be different. However, one can often see the very same motives to lead to acts of corruption, as well as to violations of human rights and freedoms. Such motives may include, for example, greed, social selfishness, disregard for the generally accepted standards of morality or law norms. Committing corrupt acts often entails violation of the rights of citizens: for example, when a patient entitled to a free surgical operation can have it only after the doctors get their bribes. And equally often, violations of the rights of citizens bear the signs of corruption crimes: for example, when commanders of military units get a fee for "renting out" their drafted personnel as labor force to businessmen. This similarity between the motives of corruption and violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the persistently observed causal relationships between these phenomena, provided for the formulation of the following hypothesis: corruption and violation of citizens' rights and freedoms are interlinked by common features in their social nature, as well as by mutual conditionality of their motivation, methods of action, their consequences, and also by the high level of social danger of such phenomena.

It was important to test this hypothesis in the course of a specially organized study. Its confirmation would mean the need to link anti-corruption measures with measures against violations of rights and freedoms of citizens, which still present separated practices in the Russian public administration and non-profit organizations. And consistent counteraction to both these negative social phenomena would be more efficient for each of them.

Checking this hypothesis, however, is quite a difficult task because there is no methodology of relevant studies in Russia. To conduct such a study, the authors of the report had to come up with its general methodology and specific research methods all by themselves, having minimum experience and no previous research to rely upon since similar studies in our country had been almost not known before.

Corruption may involve a variety of actors. Those can be public officials, representatives of private businesses, public and non-commercial organizations, and individual citizens. As far as the observance of human rights is concerned, the usual approach implies that their violation is always and entirely the result of actions by the state, state organs, and their staff. Observance of rights and freedoms is what is guaranteed and secured by the state, and what the state acknowledges its responsibility for. That is exactly why human rights activities are aimed at protection against violation of citizens' rights and freedoms exclusively by the state. “Human rights is just what happens between authorities and a unit; it is not the problem of the correlation between units: me and my wife, a neighbor, a child”.1 Therefore the analysis of the link between corruption and violation of human rights

1 To Marek Nowicki's 65

th Anniversary: "Authorities and the Unit" – fundamental lecture on rights and freedoms. A

recording of a fundamental lecture by one of the leading European human rights experts Marek Nowicki, Chairman of the Board of the Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights (Marek Nowicki, 1947 – 2003). Portal "Human Rights in Russia": http://www.hro.org/node/14287

4

in the implemented project was limited only to the sphere of relations between authorities and citizens.

The initiators of the project carved the idea to study the relationship between corruption and human rights violations in Russia to its final shape in 2008. By that time, the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Development had accumulated many years of experience in protecting human rights in the Russian army, where corruption was identified as the cause for many cases of human rights violation.

Bribery at conscription leads to social injustice: drafted by far more frequently are young men from poor or disadvantaged families unable or unwilling to pay bribes, while their financially secure peers continue to address their careers, undisturbed. For the same corrupt reason those drafted into the army demonstrate such a high percentage of those who were originally not meant to serve at all, for health reasons: they had simply been unable to pay a bribe to military conscription offices or doctors. Soldiers, who have fallen victims to crime in military units, in most cases cannot restore justice and get the perpetrators punished, on their own. Human rights activists name, among other reasons for this, not only the lack of openness of military units and the military justice system to civil control, the conspiracy of mutual support among the officers, but also the corruption among judges and prosecutors.

Finding a similar dependence in other social spheres, where the state finds itself "in direct contact" with its citizens, would be more than likely. Such was the main idea behind this study of the relationship between corruption and violation of human rights and freedoms in Russia.

It was decided to collect a relatively small database, with careful and detailed description of diverse cases where such a relationship would presumably take place. It was only natural that the set of cases had been based on information from experts dealing with violation of rights and freedoms of citizens, and with problems of counteracting corruption.

In May, 2011, the initiative group developed the "Description Manual for the cases of corruption interlacing with rights of citizens in modern Russia». In the summer and autumn of 2011, the human rights activists collected and described the cases, and conducted mass media monitoring. Collected cases were classified, and then analyzed with the help of a specially developed technique.

Experts selected the cases of corruption linked with violation of human rights that they estimated as typical. That gave hope that the analysis of those cases could help reveal general regularities of such a link. It was necessary to use not judicial but sociological approach to such analysis, providing for identification of typical schemes for social action by duly profound analysis of the examples of their commission. Such techniques are well established in modern sociology, they are often used to help researchers orientate in the new field of social analysis. Identification of these specific features of the consciousness often makes it clear, what questions can be addressed to representatives of broad social groups in mass survey on the problems of this new field of social analysis.

As a result, the researches managed to reveal the characteristic manifestations of the links between corruption and violation of human rights and freedoms, as well as their mutual motives and similar consequences. Developed also were proposals to break the relation between corruption and human rights, aimed at simultaneously reducing both the level of corruption and violation of the rights of citizens.

Notions and definitions used in the report

1. Notion of Corruption

Despite Russia's participation in a number of international anti-corruption conventions, the Russian legislation, until recently, has contained no definition of corruption. It made its appearance only in 2008, thanks to the adoption of the law «On combating corruption». In accordance with Article 1 of this law, corruption is "the abuse of power, giving a bribe, reception of a bribe, abuse of authority, commercial bribery or any other illegal use by individuals of their official position contrary to the legitimate interests of the society and

5

the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, values, other property or services of a material nature, other property rights, for themselves or for third parties, or the unlawful granting of such benefits to an individual by other individuals".

However, today, the understanding of corruption as a solely criminal offence is too narrow and outdated. The understanding of corruption as a social phenomenon is more adequate to modern conditions.

It is common knowledge that the countries of the European Union introduced not only criminal, but also civil liability for corruption, i.e. liability not related to criminal charges, but assuming civil actions in the courts regarding, in particular, violations of rights and freedoms, tangible and intangible interests of the parties. In particular, civil claims from individuals who have suffered damage as a result of corruption may be filed with the courts in order to obtain full redress, which is not the case in modern Russia. But since Russia had signed the Council of Europe Convention on civil liability for corruption of November 4, 1999, such understanding of corruption should gradually be introduced in Russia as well.

Article 2 of this Convention contains the following interpretation of corruption: "For the purposes of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof".2

Thus, the most adequate for Russian conditions, apparently, is the recognition as being corrupt of any action disturbing normal regulation, and development, of an industry, sector, region, and the country in general through the use of public power for realization of personal or corporate interests at the expense of the public. The interests need not necessarily be material, they may be intangible if actions are taken to match some ideas or ideological grounds, for example.

Therefore, corruption should entail any action involving the use of one's social status, or standing in the state power system, private business, in non-commercial, or public, sphere aimed at profit-making under any circumstances or by whatever means.

Of course, legally punishable are only actions that violate the norms of the law. But corruption is not limited to those: the possibility of corruption legal qualification should not present its only sign.

2. Violation of human rights and freedoms

For the purposes of this study, violation of human rights and freedoms must qualify as a violation, by state bodies, of the basic, globally accepted principles of human rights and freedoms.

Priority of fundamental human rights is the general principle of international and constitutional law of modern States. The understanding of the rights and freedoms of citizens must be determined by the international, rather than national, standards. This principle is laid down in Part 1 of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: "In the Russian Federation recognition and guarantees shall be provided for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and according to the present Constitution".

The principle of respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the most important general principle of law in modern States, and it must have an absolute imperative force in the sense that no law may contradict this principle. In Russia, this provision is envisaged by Part 2 of Article 55 of the Constitution: "In the Russian Federation no laws shall be adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms".

The modern concept of human rights is based on the principle of equality of human individuals from birth, which prevents discrimination based on racial, national, religious, or social differences. Equality must be guaranteed irrespective of sex, age, marital status,

2 Civil Law Convention on Corruption, Strasbourg, 4 November 1999. Council of Europe Document ETS #174. Courtesy translation. Access mode: http://www.echr-base.ru/CED174.jsp

6

place of residence, command of one or another language, and other social characteristics of individuals.

In this Report, the term "human rights" refers to the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen specified in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. They include as follows:

- personal rights (the right to life, liberty, and personal integrity, the right to inviolability of private life, personal and family secrets, protection of dignity, the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph, and other communication, the right to inviolability of home, the right to free movement, choice of a place to stay or residence, etc).

- political rights (the right to association, freedom of rallies and meetings, the right to elect and be elected, the right to information, the right to (political) asylum, the right to appeal to the state bodies, etc.)

- socio-economic rights (the right to work, to choose an occupation and profession, to rest, to remuneration without discrimination, to protection of health and medical care, to a home, social security, the right to form trade unions, the right to private property, etc);

- cultural rights and freedoms (to education, freedom of creativity, etc.), and environmental rights (the right to healthy environment).

3. Corruption as the discrimination development factor

Corrupt practices can provoke a discriminatory effect in relation to human rights. For

example, when corruption limits the access of a person who has not given a bribe to suitable housing conditions, it means discrimination. Housing must be accessible to all, and the poor and needy, in particular, should be given an advantage. In the case of eviction, or relocation, of people they should be provided with alternative housing, but cases may occur (which is one of the constant violations in Russia) when people are denied the promised access because of corruption schemes involving a government official responsible for the realization of this right. Thus, the ongoing programs for reduction of housing prices aiming to improve the social situation of low-income citizens, can create opportunities for corruption, where officials, with the prospect of personal benefit, may discriminate against some for the benefit of others.

Corruption in the health sector often violates the right to equality and non-discrimination. Extortion of bribes from the patient restricts his right to health and medical services. A bribe may be offered to a health worker in several cases: in order to get the necessary treatment, save time, or provide a better treatment. Money or a gift may also be offered to express gratitude. It is sometimes difficult to draw a line between these cases, so each of them has to be carefully analyzed. First, if the bribe is extorted directly by a health worker, and is put forward as a condition to obtain an acceptable treatment, this presents a clear violation of the human right to health. Secondly, if informal remuneration is given in gratitude, this is similar to paying for getting a higher quality of medical care. In both situations, the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination will be violated in relation to those who cannot pay for "services".

4. Corruption as the democratic development disruption factor

Most often, corruption leads to violation of human rights in countries with certain persistent characteristics:

- countries possessing plentiful resources, where democratic institutions are absent or weak;

- countries recovering from a conflict;

7

- countries where no special attention is paid to human rights in the course of the development and implementation of major infrastructural projects.3

In a situation where democratic institutions are not developed or weak, where civil and parliamentary control is insufficient, where the government avoids reporting to the citizens in any way, and the country possesses enormous natural resources (gas, oil, timber, minerals, etc), favorable conditions are created for the development of corruption. In this case, corruption becomes institutionalized and provides strong support to the patronizing system. This, in turn, leads to the loss of accountability of the government and state executive bodies, which creates the conditions for the violation of a number of human rights. Establishing democratic institutions is necessary for the countries that are rich in natural resources, but at the same time are completely dependent on them.

Comparison of the international organizations indexes indirectly confirms that the higher the level of corruption in the country, the worse is the situation with democracy. In its latest estimates, Transparency International ranks Russia 133 of 174 places in the Corruption Perception Index4. According to the Freedom House Index, Russia has been among non-free countries for a long time already5. Despite the accusations of rating subjectivity from a number of experts, this comparison shows a simple dependency: in the countries with high level of corruption human rights and freedoms are endangered, while in the states with low corruption level, the situation with human rights and freedoms is better beyond comparison.

Purposes, methods, and organization of the research

The purpose for analyzing the compiled cases was to obtain a well-grounded and

objective confirmation of the availability of a significant relation between corruption and violation of human rights in contemporary Russia. Such relation can often be identified by analyzing certain corresponding instances. The goal of the analysis was to prove that such relation is a social regularity in the Russian society.

To ensure successful analysis, the following tasks had to be solved:

Task 1: Classifying the compiled cases as per types of possible combined violations of human rights and freedoms as well as manifestations of corruption.

In the course of the further analysis, the solution of this task ensured a faster search for instances providing the most vivid demonstration of the social regularities being studied.

The case classification was implemented by means of a special Table filled in with case description criteria codes:

Table. Classification of cases displaying a relation between

violation of human rights and corruption

No. Title of the case displaying a relation between violation of human rights and corruption

Types of human rights violations

Types of corrupt actions

Types of officials indulging in corrupt activities and human rights violation

Types of citizens and public organizations involved in corrupt activities and human rights violation

1 2 3 4 5 6

3 International Council on Human Rights Policy & Transparency International. «Corruption and Human Rights:

Making the Connection» p.25: www.ichrp.org/files/reports/40/131_web.pdf. 4 TI Corruption Perception Index (2012): http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results. 5 Freedom House. Country profiles: Russia (2013): http://www.freedomhouse.org/country/russia.

8

Columns 3 through 6 of the above Table contained figures corresponding to possible values of specific types. If a column was to be filled with several figures because of the simultaneous observation of several corresponding types, the figures were separated with commas.

The codes for the types of relation between corruption and violation of human rights in the compiled instances were as follows:

Types of human rights violation: 1 – Creation of conditions (including those institutional and legislative) for non-

observance, or restriction, of the citizens' constitutional rights and freedoms. 2 – Violation and/or restriction of human rights as a result of corrupt actions in

relation to the given individual or a legal person. 3 – Indirect harm to lawful interests and rights of separate groups of citizens,

individuals, or legal persons resulting from selective preference towards lawful interests and rights of others.

4 - Selective interest in restoring violated rights and freedoms of some individuals and organizations as compared to the absence of such interest in relation to others.

Types of corrupt actions: 1 – Bribing, giving or receiving a bribe, or these two actions taken together. 2 – Commercial bribery. 3 – Illegal participation in economic or other commercial activity, including that

of other individuals or legal persons. 4 – Mismanagement of funds (of budgetary, extra-budgetary, or commercial

origin) in order to receive material or other advantages for a certain group of persons.

5 - Abuse of the right of, and exceeding official authority with the purpose of extraction of any type of benefits in respect of a certain group of persons (conflict of interests "in one's own favor")

6 – Non-regulated by law (normative legal acts of any level) provision of services of political, organizational and administrative, or any other non-commercial character by officials using the resources based on their official powers.

Types of officials indulging in corrupt activities and human rights violation: 1 – Federal state bodies. 2 – Regional state bodies. 3 – Municipal bodies and bodies of local self-administration. 4 – Separate officials within state bodies of all levels and categories. 5 – Private businesses, corporations, organizations, and enterprises of any type

of ownership. 6 – Separate officials representing private businesses, corporations,

organizations, and enterprises of any type of ownership.

Types of citizens and their associations involved in corrupt activities and

human rights violation: 1 – Separate individuals. 2 – Groups of individuals having no judicial status, informal, and associated on

their own initiative. 3 – Public organizations. 4 – Non-commercial organizations. 5 – Charity organizations. 6 – Associations of civil organizations of various types.

9

Task 2. Nomination and verification of hypotheses on the relation between corruption and human rights, i.e. the assumptions explaining these relations.

The hypotheses were verified using the Table generated during the previous step when solving Task 1, supplemented by three more columns:

Column 7 of the Table presented codes for negative or positive relation between corruption and rights and freedoms of the citizen:

1 - Negative relation. 2 - Positive relation. In accordance with the working definition of the project, the relation is considered

negative when corruption becomes a factor in human rights violation, discourages or prevents the provision of security or protection to certain rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

A positive relation is established when it is only through corruption that the violated rights of a person can be restored. In this case, the victim of human rights violation is deliberately put in such a situation where corruption remains the only means of restoring justice, receiving compensation, or punishing the perpetrators.

Presented in column 8 of the Table were codes of the general social factors:

1 - Lack of understanding and reluctance to apply the universal norms of law to regulation of interrelations between citizens and the authorities, and among citizens themselves. These norms do not necessarily have to pertain to acting legislation, they may also be norms of ethics, morality, moral behavior, etc. The same code should be assigned to a low level of morality, as a common factor of both corruption and violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

2 - Manifestation of the social selfishness.

3 - Manifestation of rent-seeking behavior.

4 - Following cultural traditions and entrenched social stereotypes actively rejecting the modern understanding of corruption, or the rights and freedoms of citizens, or both.

5 - Implications of commercializing the spheres of non-market interaction and values. The type of corruption as a social phenomenon is important for further analysis,

therefore it was also shown in column 9 of the Table:

1 - A one-time instance of corrupt actions by an official.

2 - Manifestation of institutionalized corruption. The analysis of actual cases of a relation between corruption and violation of human

rights and freedoms sometimes discovered both those types of corrupt behavior. In such instances, just like with other columns of the Table, all necessary code entries were separated with commas.

Task 3. Generalizing the substantiation of the hypotheses, working out conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the analysis.

Methodology of this analysis included the rationale for typification of the collected cases, an explanation for the prevalence of social phenomena described therein, as well as general factors determining the manifestation of corruption and violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, or ways and opportunities to support them in this country.

Findings and recommendations

The research conducted in the course of the project has confirmed the link existing between corruption and human rights and freedoms. In particular, the study revealed general social regularities in the perpetration of corrupt actions and violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, which proves the existence of a relation between these social phenomena.

10

General social regularities of the relation between corruption and citizens' rights and

freedoms Such general social regularities of the relation between corruption and citizens' rights

and freedoms may include as follows:

1. Lack of understanding and reluctance to apply universal norms of law The modern Russian state and municipal governance is not regulated by universal

values, norms and priorities shared by all officials and offices of the state. In the Russian state and municipal governance system, the decisions to be taken are subject to approval by the governing bodies whose interests might be put at stake, and not by citizens. Therefore the authorities' decisions regarding solution of various problems or regulating various fields of activity quite rarely meet the interests of citizens, and their implementation quite rarely allows citizens to solve their problems.

Citizens, nevertheless, have to solve their problems, which cannot be achieved with the use of universal norms of law. Thus, instead of using universal norms of law in their communication with authorities, citizens are forced to apply informal, particular norms and rules which quite often appear corrupt.

Corruption in all its manifestations implements the denial of equal treatment of citizens by officials and implementation of the particular, i.e. private and informal norms of the solutions to their problems. Through the implementation of such interests, corruption is associated with violation of rights and freedoms of citizens, as those rights and freedoms imply the equality of all citizens, and application of the universal norms and rules for their implementation. Therefore, the refusal of the use of universal norms and rules in the interaction of citizens with authorities in many cases realizes the rights and freedoms of some of the citizens and officials - participants of corruption, as a rule – at the expense of violating the rights and freedoms of other citizens and officials.

2. Protection by citizens of their rights by means of corruption

Misunderstanding of the significance and reluctance to apply universal norms of law

in their interactions with the citizens, leads authorities to solving the citizens' problems through the use of particular, private norms of interaction. In the practice of ensuring rights and freedoms of citizens by the authorities it very often means that the official serving in such authority, and having powers in this sphere, will make a decision about his\her actions with regard of the citizen's personality and prevailing conditions.

Formally, this situation is often explained by the authorities as being a manifestation of their justice, and of the necessity to thoroughly consider all the circumstances of the issues and problems put forward by the citizens, in the course of decision-making by officials. But in fact, in many cases, the citizens have a by far better chance to defend their rights belonging to them by virtue of their Russian citizenship or their affiliation with a preferential social group, if they bribe the officials for solving their problems. And this presents a widely used practice in contemporary Russia. It turns out that corruption is also linked with human rights in the way that allows citizens, whose rights are being violated, to ensure the realization of those rights by means of corruption. Naturally, the ensuring of human rights in such a way is always particular, and cannot be assessed as a positive social practice in a state of law where the rights of citizens should be ensured through the application of universal law and legislation.

3. Violation of the universally accepted norms of morality

It is a well-known fact, that a moral duty is understood as the obligation to take into account the interests of any other person in an equal manner, to render him equal help, support, care, etc. In this respect norms of morality completely correspond to the modern concepts of rights and freedoms of citizens, since they should be also equally observed with regard to every citizen.

11

Moral norms accepted in this or that social community, determine the choice of means for solving problems, or satisfying the needs and interests, of individuals. Therefore, in many cases, moral norms are defined and formalized in legal norms and laws. The low level of morality in the modern Russian society determines frequent discrepancies between the norms of the laws and generally accepted norms of morality, the modern understanding of human rights and freedoms, as well as the injustice of many norms of the laws in the opinion of the majority of citizens.

Those indulging in corrupt activities often solve their problems at the expense of limiting the possibility of similar solutions for the third persons not involved in corruption. At the same time, corruption creates inequality in rendering help, support, or care to such third persons thus violating the norms of mutually accepted morality.

4. Manifestation of social egoism prominent in the Russian socium

Egoism (from Lat. "ego" - I, I am; French 'Egoisme', Eng. 'egoism'; Germ. 'Egoismus')

is manifested in the behavior of individuals with their actions motivated by ambition, greed, neglect of the needs and interests of others, by preferring their own interests to the interests of other persons (individual or collective).

Moral or practical egoism is the perception that the only real motive of human action is the satisfaction of personal needs, the desire for personal well-being regardless of how this aspiration will affect other individuals and social groups.

Social egoism manifests itself when a person ignores the interests of the society and social groups where he/she belongs, uses the resources of the society and his/her social groups exclusively or almost exclusively in his/her own, often selfish, interests, seeks to satisfy his/her own needs and desires at the expense of the socium and his/her social communities, giving them nothing or little instead. Social egoism often displays itself in that other individuals are considered and used as instruments to achieve personal and selfish goals, often becoming the means to reach a selfish goal while refused the possibility of realizing their own rights and freedoms. Social egoism is often felt by its subject as a state of alienation from society and social groups, or a state of loneliness in the social reality.

Social egoism allows the participants of corrupt activities solve their own problems in their own interests, in violation of the rights and freedoms of third parties not involved in these actions, by using those third parties' resources or public resources, to which the corruptionists, by generally accepted standards of morality and justice, have no right whatsoever.

5. Manifestation of developed rent-seeking behavior by the Russian bureaucracy

In the modern world, rent (from the French 'rente', German 'Rente', and the original Latin 'reddere' - return, give back, or Latin 'reddita' – returned, given back) remains a rather multivalued concept. Most often rent pertains to a regular income obtained by a person, without incurring additional costs, from the use of property, land, or capital by other people renting those assets from this person.

In a wider perception, rent is a type of income obtained by virtue of some special advantages or favorable conditions, an income received from the production or sale of a product under more or less favorable conditions for such economic activity and resulting from the difference between the costs of that activity and mostly standard, independent of the environment, labor costs.

A rent-seeking behavior in the modern world is a behavior of individuals, organizations, or private businesses aimed at obtaining greater than normal benefits, incomes, and profits not at the expense of larger labor costs or higher labor efficiency, but by using advantages available to these subjects by virtue of the social positions held by them. Used most often in this country to retrieve rent are the social positions of state and municipal officers, allowing them to distribute state resources, monetary funds in the first place; determine the recipients of state and municipal orders; and manipulate legislative or economic conditions of specific activities into creation of unjustified restrictions or

12

administrative barriers. Such cases are practically always known to contain abuse of power by officials indulging in such activities in their own greedy interests, in the interests of other individuals, authorities, or private businesses. Thus, rent-seeking behavior in the majority of cases is realized by means of corrupt activities. But apart from corruption, rent-seeking behavior very often leads to the violation of the citizens' rights and freedoms, which results from unjust or illegal distribution of state resources; unjustified restriction of competition in economics, politics, and social activities; realization of monopolist interests in economy harming the interests of the customers of their products or services. That is how the rent-seeking behavior of state, and municipal, officials becomes linked with both corruption and violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

6. Sticking to cultural traditions, customs, and entrenched stereotypes

The notion of 'culture' is known to have originated from the Latin 'cultura' meaning 'to

cultivate land'. And even in ancient times the notion of culture was already used in relation to man.

According to modern perception, the culture of an individual is formed starting with his early years in the course of his socialization, i.e. his acquaintance with the system of perceiving the world, the norms and regulations of social behavior. Successful socialization actually results in the socium to impose upon its members some obligatory formats of conceiving certain phenomena and processes as well as notions and reasons necessary to be used to understand them. Therefore, culture is embodied in socially accepted values and ideals, sustainable formats and stereotypes of individuals' activities; it defines the standards of behavior to be followed, generally accepted norms and rules of conduct in the society. Cultural values most often present rules of selecting and evaluating the objectives of the individuals' actions, and cultural norms are the rules for the selection by individuals of means, ways, and methods of implementing those actions.

Culture often includes a variety of restrictions and prohibitions, as well as the commitment to the obsolete social norms and rules. And in this respect, the culture often becomes a conservative factor in the social development, preventing formation of new social norms and rules in a society, and abandonment of the old designs and behavior stereotypes.

The modern Russian society is so much socially differentiated, that there are practically no cultural values, norms, or rules in this country common for the whole of our society. The Russian society has divided into large or small numerically social groups with different subcultures. And only inside these subcultures one detects cultural values, norms, and rules that are common for corresponding social groups. Social groups with different subcultures differ from each other significantly in their interests, priorities, and values. Quite often, such social groups do not even share common language concepts, common rituals and symbols, customs, traditions, and rules of social behavior allowing their representatives to understand each other and develop common cultural values, ideals, norms and rules in the course of their social activity.

Corruption in relations between citizens and authorities, as well as the systematic violation of their rights and freedoms, is supported in the modern Russian society by the bureaucratic subculture. Committed to its values, norms, and rules are not all, but many state and municipal officials; civil, police, and military service officers; many officials of private businesses and the non-profit sector.

Since ancient times, the norms of bureaucratic subculture never granted residents, nationals, and, subsequently, citizens equal rights with officials. In this subculture, residents, subjects, and then citizens have traditionally been regarded as low status individuals, who are obliged to ensure an acceptable, and sometimes rather high level of living to those in the public service. Since ancient times, approved for this purpose was a cultural norm of the so-called 'feeding' of public servants meaning collecting wages for them directly from the residents of the regions where those employees governed and regulated the life of residents thereof. Bribery, as a voluntary informal payment for the officials' services that came to dominate over 'feeding' in Europe only in the 19

th-20

th centuries, may be considered a

significantly more civilized form of state support rendered to the income of its officials.

13

It was only in the 19th century that the most developed European countries and the

USA came to the conclusion that corruption harms the state by, first of all, degrading public servants themselves. State budgets of those countries could already afford high salaries for officials, so it became feasible to strengthen the punishments for corruption in public service and to systematically apply them.

In Russia, 'feeding' was formally cancelled in the middle of the 16th century, but

Russia's state income of that period still did not allow paying good money to officials. Therefore, the formal abolition of 'feeding' did not eliminate that social phenomenon altogether, it actually disappeared only in the 19

th century. But that social phenomenon was

succeeded by bribery, staged attacks by robbers to steal public money, and other forms of corruption. Corruption and, in particular, bribery were fought against in the imperial Russia as well as in the Soviet Union, but to no avail. As a result, corruption in the last centuries of our history only strengthened constantly as a component of the state administration culture in Russia.

The mail reason for reluctance to actually reduce the corruption level in Russia in the19

th-21

st centuries is the patrimonial system of the bureaucratic state administration as it

was called by Max Weber in the beginning of the 20th century. He estimated both the tzarist

system of state administration in late 19th – early 20

th century, and the Soviet administration

system that emerged after1917, as patrimonial. According to Max Weber, mutual obligations of the master and his subjects in the patrimonial administration are determined and regulated by customs and traditions rather than norms of law. Thus, an official is devoted to his master on the basis of his personal attitude towards his boss, while the boss considers all his subjects to exist only to satisfy his personal needs. And for the subjects to be motivated to support those needs and interests of the master, the boss grants them some powers regarded by subordinates as personal privileges received directly from their Master.

Traditions and customs do not determine the behavior of the official in all possible situations. And, if his actions are not binding by tradition, he himself decides whether to do it or not; but such decisions are often taken with a prospect of remuneration. Regular salary of officials in the patrimonial administration system is significantly complemented by granting them a variety of tangible and intangible privileges, as well as by their corruption-based incomes. Therefore, in the patrimonial administration system officials serve their master and their own interests, but they do not serve the public interests, do not implement impersonal goals, or interests of the society and the state.

The patrimonial tradition supports corruption in the Russian state and municipal governance since such are the interests of officials in realizing their privileges in their personal favor. Those interests often become so significant for the public servants that some of the posts become informally assigned to certain groups. And then to receive such a post, one must belong to a corresponding group. In some cases, the rulers are already unable to appoint loyal to them officials to these positions if their candidates do not belong to the groups that had usurped the positions in question. To overcome such non-formal filling-in of positions, rulers often resort to appointing there foreigners or people from the bottom of the society, not accustomed to the right of claiming privileges. But as a result, public administration develops favoritism, which in modern public administration should be evaluated as a manifestation of corruption.

Thus, the very struggle of the rulers against corruption while preserving the patrimonial administration traditions leads to the development of more diversified forms and manifestations of corruption instead of reducing its level. The contemporary Russian society preserves many traditions and customs of the patrimonial governance, in particular, serving one's boss instead of the impersonal state interest; regard by an official of his powers as of personal privileges; realization of those privileges for the personal benefits with the use of official powers, and often for a corrupt remuneration; informal appropriation of official positions by groups of officials and their loyal henchmen, and even by family clans, etc.

These traditions and customs, just like in the imperial Russia, appear stronger than laws and punishments for corruption. Traditions and customs of this patrimonial administration support the attitude of state and municipal officials towards citizens of this country, as of the means of implementing their relevant privileges and informal earnings. Therefore, Russian officials almost never consider citizens as their equals in rights and

14

freedoms. Officials do not consider it necessary to ensure the rights and freedoms of the citizens by their activities as they have other priorities. So the traditions and customs of the patrimonial administration are associated freedoms of citizens will almost never be provided in line with the generally accepted social norm, but the same rights and freedoms can be realized by officials privately for remuneration, with the help of corrupt activities. Therefore, the modern Russian bureaucracy, even if it ensures the rights and freedoms of citizens, it does it on a private, individual basis, not in a universal and impersonal way as is required by the modern concept of human rights and by the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. As a result, the patrimonial nature of the Russian state and municipal governance systems significantly impedes the formation in this country of a law-oriented political regime whereas the authorities and the citizens in their interactions, and when solving social problems, would abide by universal norms of law and legislation.

7.....Commercialization of non-market relations and values

Commercialization of a certain sphere of activity can be understood as the dedication of activities in this sphere to the purpose of making a profit, i.e. the use of the profit motive and the highest possible profit as a priority in this sphere. These days, commercialization is typical for almost all spheres of activities as they are penetrated by actively developing market relations, and the state and civil society in this country do not act against this process.

Commercialization exerts significant influence upon the mentality and social practices of citizens; not excluded from this process are also public officials, social support and social protection workers, those engaged in culture, education, health care, science, defense, state security, etc. Historically, these spheres of activity emerged apart from market relations, they pertain to spheres of non-market values and motivation in the behavior of citizens and officials. Commercialization of these fields of activity can significantly change that motivation shifting the priority from exercising one's duty, official responsibilities, ethical and moral norms traditionally valued in social interaction, to the obtaining of maximum possible profit and ensuring personal wellbeing and the wellbeing of one's family.

Commercialization of non-market areas of activity has signs of corruption in all cases when officials substitute execution of their duties with the extraction of profits, and use their official powers for personal or family enrichment. In such cases, commercialization often leads to violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, as those rights and freedoms cease to be ensured by the officials obliged to do so, or are secured for some tangible or intangible reward, for example, in the form of a bribe or of providing certain non-formal services. Thus, commercialization of non-market spheres of activity can be the common factor of corruption and violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Interrelation between corruption and human rights and freedoms as per sphere

of activity

Spheres of activity, where the link between corruption and human rights and

freedoms is more often manifested and is most noticeable, are as follows:

Functioning of the judiciary power

The right to a fair trial and judicial protection is enshrined in some human rights conventions and national legislations of states. The inability of the state to guarantee judicial protection of citizens creates the conditions for impunity. The state is obliged to ensure the availability, effectiveness and practical feasibility of judicial protection of the rights of the citizen. The state should guarantee the availability, efficiency, and provision of judicial protection, which implies equal access to justice, fair and public hearings, competence, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary system.

An essential feature of this right is effective administration of justice. To achieve such efficiency the state is obliged to not only establish the equality of all before the court in the law, but guarantee that it in practice. Corruption in the administration of justice violates both

15

rights – the right to a fair trial, and to judicial protection. Imagine an unfairly fired woman filing a suit against her employer, who gives a bribe to the judge to win the case. In this instance violated are not only the labor rights of the woman, but also her human rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection.

Corruption in the judicial system produces one of the gravest effects against protection of human rights and freedoms. Hence, the state must employ all available means and methods to organize fair justice.

Sphere of politics and elections

Corruption during the elections (the so-called electoral corruption) contributes to the violation of the right to free expression of the will of voters. The electoral corruption primarily means the use of administrative resources and vote buying. According to elections observing independent organizations, the violation of the right to freedom of expression due to corruption became widespread and pervasive in the course of election campaigns for the State Duma in winter 2011, and the President in spring 2012. But it is the duty of the state to create conditions which will ensure free expression of the will of citizens in the elections. Citizens must decide upon the choice of a candidate or a party all by themselves, independently, and not be influenced or feel pressure about their choice. The state must protect voters from any form of influence and against any form of unlawful actions during the process of voting.

Corruption poses a threat to the institutional development of democratic governance. In countries where the right to political participation is limited, the rights to life, liberty, security, freedom of expression and association are, as a rule, not respected either. Failure to comply with such rights as the right to freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful assembly, in turn, creates favorable conditions for the development of corruption in administrative bodies. As a result, the combined practice of corruption and violation of political rights of citizens expands.

Social and labor relations

Corruption violates the right to labor, to equal access to state services, and to mutual

benefits. The Report also contains examples of persecuting trade unions and their leaders for their counteraction against corruption.

Social sphere: health and education

Violation of economic, social, and cultural rights requires special attention as the violation of the rights of this category (such as the right to housing, to health care and medical assistance, to favorable environment, to education, to social security) has a direct impact on the condition of a person, affecting the basic life functions.

Violation of social rights is often caused by the perpetration of corrupt actions; such examples are provided in the report in the sections on social factors of relation between corruption and violation of human rights. Violation of social rights resulting from corruption is largely determined by the lack of mechanisms of citizen control over the activities of officials, primarily through elected bodies. Moreover, the absence of citizen control over activities of the authorities in many other areas often leads to corruption and to violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens simultaneously.

Corruption in the educational system or health system makes these areas inaccessible for the poorer sections of the population, violating their right to health and education, thus reducing their social status and physical condition.

The right to health, in particular, is usually understood in terms of accessibility, acceptability, and quality of medical services and health programs, goods and services. Medical institutions, as well as goods and services, should be sufficient, be accessible to

16

everyone without exception, i.e. without discrimination, and shall comply with the standards and quality. The majority of corruption cases have an impact on some of these elements. An example would be the theft of public resources by state officials. Part of the health budget from the Ministry of Finance may fail to reach the Ministry of Health. Part of the money can be pumped aside on the way from the federal treasury to the regional budget, or can also be squandered by heads and managers of local hospitals and clinics. Therefore, the allocated funds reach the final point not in full, which has a direct effect on the salaries of the staff, the quality and availability of medical equipment. Thus, corruption affects the availability and the quality of the right to health and medical services.

Embezzlement of funds directed to other social programs, goes by a similar scenario. In the case of educational programs, theft of budget results in lower quality of education, which affects students and teachers (who get lower wages), which in the future will have a grave effect on the availability of competent and qualified experts in the given field. Low salaries for teachers often lead to new corruption mechanisms, resulting in discrimination against those who cannot afford to bribe their way to a university, for example.

Such phenomena when corrupt practices, in particular, embezzlement, result in violation of human rights can be traced over the example of social programs aimed at improving the situation of prisoners, improving the housing conditions of families with many children or poor families, etc.

Migration

The law "On legal status of foreign citizens" creates extensive opportunities for corruption, of which the human rights advocates warned as early as at the stage of its discussion. With visa-free entry available to the huge number of citizens from labor-abundant countries, the introduction of quotas for work permits and hiring could not lead to anything but corruption and emergence of a million-strong army of illegal labor migrants.

Construction firms and other companies are interested in employing illegal migrants, who can be treated as slaves. Naturally, the law proclaims slave labor impossible in Russia, but in reality it exists through bribery and other forms of corruption in the migration service, the police, and other law enforcement agencies. Thus corruption in the sphere of migration becomes linked with gross violation of human rights and freedoms.

Armed Forces

Corruption and violation of human rights in the Russian Army have acquired the scale

of an epidemics. In most cases, corruption is linked with the still remaining problem of drafting to the military service, which in its turn is characterized by a significant restriction of rights provided for by the law, and practically unlimited powers of commanding officers, which builds conditions for the use of corruption to one's own benefit.

Massive bribery during conscription leads to social injustice: drafted are mostly young men from poor or socially disadvantaged families, who cannot, or do not want to, pay a bribe. For the same reason, those drafted feature a high percentage of those who should not serve in the army at all for health reasons. Corruption and extortion in the army are often reasons for the violation of fundamental rights: the right to life, to freedom from torture and from abasement of human dignity.

Public security

Corruption in police encourages violation of the right to life, to freedom from torture

and from abasement of human dignity. In many instances, police and other law enforcement agencies appear unable to protect rights and freedoms of citizens, who can attain that only from time to time and often by means of bribery. Moreover, law enforcement agencies and courts in this country frequently act in the interests of officials, largest owners, and private businesses, violating the rights and freedoms of large social groups of citizens. This

17

happens, for example, when representatives of public administration and their relatives are not found guilty in making a traffic accident despite multiple evidence of the opposite, when courts grant large banks the right to take their clients' apartments away from their owners as means of debt repayment, and in other cases.

Recommendations

Based on the results and conclusions of the implemented project, in order to break the relation between corruption and violation of citizens' rights and freedoms, it is recommended as follows:

In their activities aimed at protection of the citizens' rights and freedoms, human rights activists must, where possible, detect and counteract corruption linked with those rights and freedoms.

Public administration bodies and other organizations counteracting corruption must also ensure protection of the citizens' rights and freedoms in their legislative efforts as well as in their anti-corruption practices.

The following principles of anti-corruption policy and human rights protection may contribute to the destruction of the link between corruption and the citizens' rights and freedoms, and to the reduction of the corruption and human rights violation levels:

Persistent participation of citizens and civil organizations in elaborating the norms of law regulating various life situations including interaction between citizens and public administration.

Priority implementation of the norms of law, elaborated in the course of public discussions and civil practices, in Russian legislation.

Realization in the universal legislative activities of the norms of law ensuring equality of rights and freedoms of all citizens of the state.

Persistent monitoring of norms in projected laws, acting laws, and other regulatory acts for corruptibility and exclusion of corruptible norms from legislation.

Persistent monitoring of norms in projected laws, acting laws, and other regulatory acts for compliance with the rights and freedoms of citizens, and exclusion of non-compliant norms from legislation.

Constant checking of legislative norms and actual procedures of the Russian state and municipal service functioning for their compliance with modern principles:

o Bureaucracy exercises its service to the state and public benefit with complete refusal of traditions and customs of patrimonial governance;

o Privileges violating the rights and freedoms of other citizens are unacceptable for officials of any level;

o Obtaining rent by officials based on their official powers is unacceptable;

o Commercialization of officials' activities at all levels should be minimized.

Implementation of further profound studies of the relation between corruption and human rights and freedoms including some hypotheses already formulated and tested in this project.

It is highly recommendable to reform the systems of state and municipal services,

and apply these principles for elaboration of relevant concepts, plans, programs, laws, and other regulatory acts, as well as for control over actual functioning of those systems.

18

Conclusion

Corruption fighters and human rights activists: there is a reason to work together

Where there is corruption

there always is violation of human rights.

RF President Dmitry Medvedev (2009)6

Corruption is a significant factor of the deteriorating situation with human rights, and

in Russia, it is probably the main factor of this kind. The use of one's power, or official position, motivated by self-interest results in neglecting the rights of citizens that leads to impunity and lawlessness on the side of representatives of the state. The influence of corruption at human rights may at that be direct or indirect.

An example of the direct influence is corruption in courts, when a bribe to the judge directly undermines his independence and, in this way, violates the right to fair justice.

Much more often though does corruption exert indirect influence, that is when it appeared an indispensable, but not the only one, condition of violating human rights, becoming a link in the chain of the factors leading to the breach. This happens when violation of human rights becomes a consequence to an act of corruption7. A vivid example is the fate of the Khimki forest in the Moscow suburbs, which is being unlawfully cut down as a result of a corrupt plot, and this leads to the violation of local residents' right to a favorable environment. This Report also provides quite a few examples of indirect influence of corruption on violation of human rights.

So, how does corruption contribute to human rights violations? First of all, it violates the most important principle of equality: if citizens do not want to or cannot pay bribes and do not belong to the community of the chosen ones, they may be deprived of equal access to public goods and services. This may be confirmed by the fact, that, as estimated by experts and found in sociological researches, the most corrupted institutions of public life in Russia are traffic police and police in general, health, education, and military conscription8. These are the very institutions that should ensure rights to personal integrity, life, health, education, that are so important for each citizen, and should support law and order in the state, and the fulfilment of its social obligations to citizens. But it is these institutions that are the most corrupt in this country, and it is these institutions that violate the rights and freedoms of our citizens more often than any other.

Corruption contributes to social discrimination, deepens the gap between the poor and the rich. If representatives of the well-to-do segment pay bribes in order to neutralize a threat to their sources of income and gain additional benefits, the poor segment and, hence, people having no established corrupt ties, do it to neutralize the threats to their rights, life and health, to restore justice and get what they are already entitled to by law. Social discrimination is also manifested in the fact that the poor are forced to pay a bribe more often than people from privileged backgrounds. Thus, corruption gravely affects the poorest, emburdening them with an additional economic stress. Taking into consideration the vulnerability of social layers of the society towards corruption, the United Nations included anti-corruption elements in its program of assistance to developing countries, with the following reasoning: "Corruption affects the poor disproportionately, due to their powerlessness to change the status quo and inability to pay bribes, creating inequalities that violate their human rights"9.

6 Dmitry Medvedev's videblog of 25 May, 2009: http://blog.da-medvedev.ru/post/15.

7 For more details see: Rights: Making the Connection. International Council on Human Rights Policy, Geneva,

2009. p. 27. 8 State of everyday corruption in the Russian Federation (based on the sociological research of the 2

nd half of

2010). Moscow, 2011. p. 17 (growth of corruption), p.p. 25-31 (everyday corruption figures): http://www.indem.ru/corrupt/doklad_cor_INDEM_FOM_2010.pdf. 9 Thusitha Pilapitiya. The impact of corruption on the human rights based approach to development. UNDP policy

paper, YN Oslo Governance Centre, Oslo, 2004, p. 5.

19

Corruption also contributes to the deepening of discrimination on racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic, social, gender and other characteristics10. Presenting an example of discrimination on ethnic grounds largely due to corruption is the situation of migrant workers from Central Asia or the Caucasus in Russia, who incomparably more often than representatives of other ethnic groups fall victims to extortion of bribes by public officers. Gender-based discrimination on the basis of corruption manifests itself, for example, when women, being more dependent than men, are more likely to face arbitrariness of state bodies and officials when applying for social payments and benefits or in the course of getting a job. Victims of discrimination get doubly affected due to corruption, since once there has been a violation of their rights, not all of them can restore justice if they are unable or unwilling to pay bribes. That is why the international anti-discriminatory principles require States to ensure equal access to services, goods and resources for all vulnerable and minority groups, be they women, refugees, migrants, small indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, prisoners, the poor and other.11

Both of these phenomena - corruption and human rights violations – have a lot in common. For example, often involved in both human rights violation and corruption are representatives of the state. In the first case, it's obvious as the interaction of the parties within the relationship regarding human rights is exercised entirely along the 'citizen – state' line. As far as the second part of the assertion is concerned, there is quite a clear trend: the main (but not only) subjects of corruption are the people who have the authority and powers, i.e. state officials, and private citizens present the object thereof.

Whether whole state institutions are capable of violating the rights of citizens because of corruption is an issue for a separate discussion. Although some generalizations, in particular, by the mass media are mostly valid (e.g.: «the corrupt court refuses to release the innocent convicted»), what is meant more often is bribery by separate servants of the state. The Federal law № 273-FZ of 25.12.2008 «On combating corruption», notes the possibility of corruption offenses "on behalf of or in the interests of a legal person" - without any explanation of this term (Article 14).

The domination of representatives of the state among corrupt officials is obviously one of the principal characteristics of corruption. «Among the persons prosecuted for corruption, 42.2 percent are employees of ministries, state committees, regional administrations, and 25,8 percent are servants of law enforcement bodies. Overall, representatives from government agencies total there 68 percent» - the newspaper Izvestia wrote in 1994.12 The trend has not changed: in modern Russia, generally accepted as the main character of bribery is usually a state official.

There also is, without doubt, a desire to spare no effort in protecting the official, a colleague and buddy in the corporation "State". Yuri Feofanov, the observer of Izvestiya, who, in 1994, participated in the discussion of the draft law "On combating corruption" that failed to become law, considered that "in all legal systems only officials are recognized as the bribe-taker, that is, only those who are in public service". In the Russian bill this certainty was dissolved. become Deliberately or through thoughtlessness, but the authors included into number of "subjects of corruption", that is, the potential bribe-takers, just everyone they could. Those include employees of organizations, institutions, and enterprises irrespective of forms of ownership...»13 As mentioned above, today's law "On combating corruption" repeats this shortcoming, appealing only to a wide and non-concrete term «legal person». At the same time, the UN Convention against corruption in its Article 2 defines the concept of "public official"14, i.e. always a specific individual, who may commit a corrupt act.

10 Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities.

International Council on Human Rights Policy, Geneva, 2010, p. 1: http://www.ichrp.org/en/projects/136. 11 Ibid. 12 Izvestiya, 20 July, 1994. Quoted from: Marina Salye, "Mafia and corruption", Moscow, 1994, p.10. 13 Yuri Feofanov. Power-money-power. Izvestia, 10 June, 1994. Quoted from: Marina Salye, "Mafia and

corruption", Moscow, 1994, p.194. 14 United Nation Convention Against Corruption, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 31 October, 2003.

20

A second similarity of both phenomena already mentioned above: corruption victims and victims of human rights violation are, as a rule, ordinary citizens not belonging to the privileged groups. But this should not lead to the conclusion that all officials are bad and corrupt, while all citizens are good and suffer from the actions of officials. According to the head of the INDEM Fund Sociology Department, Vladimir Rimsky, such simplification is not correct: «Actually, officials are rather the same as the majority of citizens. As soon as the individual holds a position in the authority, he begins to engage in corruption in one way or another, corresponding to the authority of this post. However, few officials are involved in large scale corruption transactions; many, but not all take bribes from citizens and entrepreneurs; and the majority of officials, in the framework of their official powers, fulfil the corruption decisions of their superiors. The latter is usually not considered corruption, but in fact such performers make their contribution to the establishment of the corruption-generating provisions of laws, widespread contempt for citizens, violation of their rights and freedoms, impunity for bribery and other crimes".15

The third common feature. The situations with corruption and human rights are affected by a number of the same factors. The growth of corruption and human rights violations occurs mostly with a deficit of: (a) civil control, (b) transparency and access to information on activities of government agencies, (c) government accountability to the society.

Hence a conclusion: involvement of the public, non-profit organizations, and citizens in the governance of the state; establishment of real public control over the activity of government bodies; increased openness of public authorities, lead to the reduction of the levels of corruption and human rights violation.

Thus, there is a lot in common between these phenomena, their interdependence and mutual influence are evident. Corruption leads to human rights violations, which in turn leads to the growth of corruption. Georgy Satarov saw the signs in this phenomenon which in the electrical engineering are referred to as 'a generator with positive feedback'. In our case, this means that corruption entails consequences that promote the growth of corruption. Hence, corruption, if it is not subdued deliberately, cannot decrease all by itself. Its natural state is growth.16

However, this relationship is not so univocal. S.A. Gannushkina rightly points to the following fact: "Human rights can be violated in the most flagrant manner even without any corruption whatsoever. This is the way hard totalitarian regimes are arranged. On the other hand, in a small prosperous country (almost a village) relationships may be based on mutual services and gratitude, if a feasible bribe is taken from everyone".17

Describing the dependence of human rights from the level of corruption, Svetlana Gannushkina then writes: It makes sense to speak about a modern state with a legal system based on the principles of human rights. Corruption, of course, exerts a grave impact on their observance. Flying in the paper bin are, of course, articles of the Universal Declaration: 6 (recognition of a person as a subject of rights), 7 (equality of everyone before the law), 8 (restoration of the infringed rights). It is on their violation that corruption is built. And further on, rights associated with the judiciary system, and the right to own property cannot be observed any longer. Then, in order to create the appearance of functioning of the investigative and judicial system, torture and violation of the right to life come to the scene. Such development can be traced in any sphere".18

From written above, it seems quite sensible and logical that human rights activists and corruption fighters should unite their efforts to improve the quality of their work and increase its efficiency. It seems that the strategy of counteracting corruption will be strengthened if it considers the human rights aspect, and vice versa, the protection of human rights could be strengthened if the human rights organizations include in their agenda an

15 V.L. Rimsky, head of Sociology Department, INDEM Foundation (from correspondence with the author, May

2012). 16 Anti-corruption policy. Edited by G.A. Satarov. INDEM Foundation, Moscow, 2004. p. 6.

17 Svetlana Gannushkina (The Civil Assistance Committee). Information analysis bulletin Corruption and Human

Rights (January 2011), p. 3: http://www.demokratia.ru/newsletter/?content=issue&id=16. 18 Ibid.

21

anti-corruption analysis of the situation and legislation. Area where both human rights and anti-corruption movements naturally converge includes, for example, protection of human rights advocates struggling with the consequences of corruption, protection of the rights of the applicants reporting cases of corruption, ensuring compliance of Russian legislation with international human rights and anti-corruption standards. Cooperation of human rights organizations with anti-corruption initiatives will produce a double positive effect: it will benefit both the society and the state.19

However, neither in Russia nor in the world does this pooling of efforts happen too often. In this connection, the study of the Geneva International Council on Human Rights Policy quoted earlier contains interesting conclusions: "Why then, if they have complementary skills and interests, have human rights and anti-corruption organizations not collaborated more regularly? To an extent, it is because anti-corruption organizations were perceived to work with governments and to be more “official”, whereas human rights organizations have a reputation for being adversarial. It is also because many anti-corruption specialists find the language and concepts of human rights alien and abstract and feel that “human rights approaches” do not necessarily provide practical solutions. There are good reasons to bring the two movements closer together; however, collaboration will require both sides to overcome differences of vocabulary and practice. A particular issue is that on occasion anti-corruption practitioners have argued that human rights principles impede effective anti-corruption law enforcement, while human rights advocates sometimes claim that certain anti- corruption practices violate human rights principles. These “tensions” reflect the constant unease that characterizes relations between law enforcement and human rights."20

We hope that this Report has presented solid reasons to bring the two movements, human rights and anti-corruption, closer to one another, although, as experience shows, such cooperation demands that both sides overcome difficulties in vocabulary and practice.

19 Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities.

International Council on Human Rights Policy, Geneva, 2010. p. iii: http://www.ichrp.org/en/projects/136. 20 Ibid., p. 63