Ombudsman Tatiana Moskalkova presented the annual report on the activity of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the President and Parliament. "This is a voluminous publication in which I tried to present all slices of human rights, all groups of human rights through the prism of human destiny, the algorithm of actions constructed as follows: a problem, a person's fate - how it is solved, and what needs to be done in lawmaking and law enforcement in order to prevent it in future, or in order to strengthen the framework for the protection of human rights," Moskalkova explained.
The report begins with the results of geographical rating, a public opinion poll, which was commissioned by the ombudsman and conducted by the Foundation ‘Public Opinion’. This material gives an incomplete, but close to reality picture of what is happening in Russia with human rights. "According to the geographical rating, people are primarily interested in the social sphere: a roof over their heads, housing, wages, an opportunity to realize themselves, access to cultural values and protection of their personal space and justice. The second place occupied by are the issues of the criminal process and the criminal-executive legislation, criminal responsibility, a fair trial, humane punishment. At the end of this scale are political rights. About 4% of people are interested in them, who are worried that political rights can be violated," the ombudsman said.
Analyzing the received appeals, Moskalkova admitted that the picture was different in them: "The social sphere is still in the first place, but in second are the issues of the criminal procedure and penal enforcement legislation. The same issues of justice, punishment, humanity in relation to a person who fell under the wheels of a judicial and investigative machine. A victim who has the right to satisfaction, a defendant who expects justice, and a convict - for humane treatment. According to the federal constitutional law, in addition to citizens 'appeals, we tried to rebuild the work of the reception room, where people come to meet with the commissioner and his staff, in order to rebuild the work of our electronic capabilities in filing appeals and improve the work with citizens' appeals in general".
Moskalkova also noted that legislative initiatives to limit Internet anonymity were a forced measure aimed at protecting the society: "Internet anonymity gave rise to youth suicides. And it was not clear who was behind these sites, calling youth for playing dangerous games. Internet anonymity spawned the spread of drugs through websites, and it was not clear who were those distributors and who should be punished. Through such veiled websites, fraudulent actions and fraudulent operations were carried out, terrorist acts were prepared. After collecting all this information, legislators are still weighing what is more important - the life and safety of people or anonymity of personal, intimate life. Here it is necessary to find a compromise and take a differentiated approach. The main thing is not to take such a big general decision: it is forbidden. Or vice versa: everyone has to report about themselves. We have to tell society who stands behind the sites, so that it would be possible to protect society from possible encroachments on their honor and dignity, life and freedom. "
