At an earlier meeting of the council we agreed to meet with members of NGOs from the North Caucasus to discuss the human rights situation in the region and look at the overall situation in the region. These are matters I deal with often in my day-to-day work, of course, but this is the first time we are holding a meeting of this kind.

We should probably start this discussion with the most basic and fundamental right of any human being – the right to life. We know that people in the North Caucasus, indeed, not just in the North Caucasus but throughout our country, still come under attack from terrorists. The sad reality is that the armed gangs operating in the Caucasus have long since become a part of the international crime network. These terrorists lure various people, young people, into their activities, and this creates more problems. 

According to Interior Ministry statistics, 544 crimes of a terrorist nature were committed in the North Caucasus in 2009. More than 750 attempts were made on the lives of law enforcement officers, with 235 of them killed and 686 injured. Over the last 12 years, 20 Muslim clerics have been killed and six have been wounded. More than ten well known journalists and human rights activists were killed over the period from 2008 to 2010. 

I have spoken about these problems on many occasions, of course, including in my Address to the Federal Assembly. A number of measures are currently being implemented in response. In January, I established the North Caucasus Federal District as a separate administrative division and appointed Alexander Khloponin as my envoy to the district and made him deputy prime minister at the same time. As plenipotentiary presidential envoy in the district Mr Khloponin has broad powers to strengthen law and order, develop the judicial system and ensure protection of human rights in the district, and also to take action to improve the social and economic situation and organise public dialogue. 

I have noted many times that a huge number of the problems in the Caucasus arise out of poor social organisation, very high unemployment, and very low living standards, even when compared to some other parts of the country.

We will discuss these issues separately, perhaps. Whatever the case, we need to carry out modern programmes to develop the Caucasus republics and we need to get our work in order in general. This also concerns the law enforcement agencies, which fall short of ideal in their work around the country in general, and in the Caucasus too. It must be said at the same time, as all of you here know, that law enforcement personnel are risking their lives every day, protecting the people living in the North Caucasus.

This is clearly a very complex situation and so the authorities at every level need to be in constant dialogue with the non-governmental organisations. I will hear from you about how your work is going, who is cooperating with you and who refuses to work together. I think that this kind of cooperation will be particularly useful once we have begun systemic work in the North Caucasus.

As I already said, one of the biggest problems we face today is that of issues affecting our young people. I have given the instruction to draw up a strategy for youth policy in the North Caucasus. This is a big subject. It will require proper funding too, of course, and these proposals are also being prepared now.

Whatever the situation, we need to address the unemployment. The total number of registered unemployed people of working age in the region now comes to more than 800,000 – approximately 20 percent of the population. If we count the non-registered unemployed the figure could be even higher. This does not mean that everyone without a job is scratching out a miserable existence, some of them are doing not so badly for themselves, but it does nonetheless affect the overall climate.

Another issue that I am sure you will raise in your speeches is that of corruption. Corruption is a crime in any region, not only in the North Caucasus. The difference is that in the North Caucasus it has reached a very dangerous point and is actually threatening our national security and weakening state and social institutions. The sad truth is that this corruption is essentially directly abetting the separatists and murderers at work in the North Caucasus.  

As I have noted in the past, there is something else distinguishing the corruption in the Caucasus from corruption around Russia in general, and that is its clan-based nature, which makes it harder to combat. 

Another issue is that of strengthening the traditions of mutual respect between different ethnic groups. I do not want to repeat banalities, but we are all one people and we must live in peace together. This is a problem that we need to address at national level, a problem that has at least two dimensions.

The first dimension is that of the distrustful attitude that people from the Caucasus encounter in other parts of Russia. Often this is accompanied by more serious problems and even crimes committed against people from the Caucasus regions. At the same time, there is also the problem of ethnic Russians leaving the North Caucasus republics, and in a number of regions this has become a serious problem that is hindering full-fledged social and economic development.

I am sure that you will have your views to share on these matters and on what we can do, what the NGOs can do to help normalise this situation.

That sums up the general outline of the issues we could examine today. I have probably not named all of the possible subjects of discussion, and you might want to add some issues of your own. I am ready to listen to you with the utmost attention.

First of all, I give the floor to Ms Pamfilova [Ella Pamfilova, chairwoman of the Council] for a brief report, and then the floor will be open to whoever wishes to speak. I inform you from the outset that everything we say will be taken down and the transcript of our meeting will be published on the presidential website, so our work today will be public. I think this also has its value.

Ms Pamfilova, you have the floor.

* * *

CHAIRWOMAN OF THE COUNCIL FOR CIVIL SOCIETY INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: I am very grateful to you and to my colleagues on the council for the opportunity to hold this meeting, which is really an unprecedented step and the first of its kind, as we have invited representatives of the human rights and public organisations working directly in the most problematic and troubled areas of the North Caucasus. These are people involved in concrete work, people with firsthand knowledge of the situation, and who are ready to work together with the authorities to bring about real change. All the effort that went into organising this meeting, all the different interests that had to be reconciled and the fears overcome helped me to realise just how complex the situation on the North Caucasus region really is. But this meeting has finally happened, and this is reason for optimism, reason to hope that we can work together step by step to unravel the knot of problems in the region.

As citizens of Russia, the peoples of the North Caucasus have every right to develop in harmony and security. They need vital resources in sufficient quantity and quality to achieve this goal. These sound like banal words, but this is the reality of the situation. These resources do exist in the region, but seeing as most people are not able to acquire them through lawful and socially useful work the majority of the population is cut off from them.

This lack of opportunities creates all kinds of conflicts that are aggravated by rivalry between clans and oligarchs for control of these vital resources. This makes it especially important to get civil society more active and involved in the real work to address these problems, and not just through the kind of formal involvement that is often the case now. This involvement could be encouraged using a variety of different mechanisms. This is something we will look at closely today.

One of the biggest worries today is that society in the North Caucasus is gradually becoming more and more isolated from Russian society as a whole. This is the picture our data paints, anyway, although some might have objections on this point. It would be good to organise ongoing dialogue at every level, exchanges of views and real honest discussions of the most pressing issues with the authorities.  We need to organise not formal but real feedback, real channels of communication that would put down roots in the region and stretch beyond, weaving the North Caucasus into the living tissue of the country as a whole. This would help people in the North Caucasus to feel that they are a part of not just their own region’s public life, but of Russian public life in general. 

I want to thank my colleagues from the Public Chamber for the immense work they have done in this area over the last six months. I hope they will tell us in detail about this work that is set to continue.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the ideological and propaganda battle (in the good sense of these terms), when it comes to the fight for hearts and minds, especially those of young people, the authorities in the regions are often losing to the armed gangs and other forces operating outside the system. This means that we need to put in place more effective mechanisms for getting the public involved in dealing with these issues. Taking into account the specific local situation, it would make sense to establish a permanent council of elders in the North Caucasus Federal District (this could be one of our subjects of discussion. It was something we discussed actively before meeting with you), and also a permanent forum of influential public human rights organisations. Of course, we need to focus our efforts on young people.

Mr President, your instruction to draft a youth policy concept for the North Caucasus that could become the prototype for a national youth policy is a significant step. The steps you have taken at federal level to support NGOs are also helping to encourage youth initiatives and develop civil society in general. I think the adoption of this package of measures will give a big boost in this area. Introducing a programme of small grants to help get young people into small business could also be an effective measure. This is something that has been tried with good results in Daghestan. Other measures include developing social entrepreneurship, a programme for seasonal employment and job training for young people from the North Caucasus in other parts of Russia, and sending youth labour brigades to take part in the work on big infrastructure projects such as those in Sochi. These are all additional measures. The main thing is to create the conditions for getting people into jobs in the North Caucasus republics themselves. This is a difficult but nonetheless realistic task, and it also plays a big part in ensuring the region’s stability and self-sufficiency. According to the information from our public organisations, the current rate of job creation is not resolving the situation.  

State bodies and public organisations should pay particular attention to social reintegration and targeted support for the most vulnerable groups of young people who suffered in armed conflicts.

In order to help young people from the North Caucasus republics adapt to conditions of military service in other regions, and also in the interests of preventing violence and conflicts during military service, young people should go through a different process of preparation before being called up, and experts from the public organisations should be involved in this work. There are experts capable of engaging in dialogue with young people on the issues of greatest concern, but this work needs to be given a systemic basis.   

The fight against corruption and clan relations needs to be commensurate with the scale of the problem. We are ready to make use of every possibility here and at the national level. We all know that federal funds do not always reach their intended recipients. Everyone wants to know where they end up. I think this is a huge job for not just the law enforcement agencies, but for the public organisations too.  

The public organisations can and should make their contribution to improving the situation, including with regard to social rights. But human rights activists, journalists and public experts continue to encounter pressure and targeted efforts to discredit them in their real work to fight corruption and arbitrariness and protect civic rights. This pressure comes from different quarters, of course, including the authorities at various levels. But the public human rights organisations and the media, though they can be harsh in their criticism of the authorities, are the authorities’ natural allies in fighting terrorism because, acting on the basis of humanist values, they create an ideological counterweight to religious radicalism and commitment to armed force. This is a public resource that the authorities should use, rather than pushing them aside and equating journalists, political opponents and human rights activists with terrorists’ accomplices.  

But at the same time, we can hardly blame the regional authorities when some of our federal politicians and officials from the Prosecutor’s Office set a bad example on occasions. Shoot me if you want, but you’ll never get me to believe that well-known journalist Alexander Minkin, for all his criticism of the methods used to fight terrorism, is an accomplice of terrorism. I can understand it that those giving cover to paedophiles lashed out at him for his fiery articles, but why take things to the absurd level? Of course the media must bear responsibility for the quality of their publications and the consequences of publications on this extremely serious and complicated issue, but we must not take things to absurd levels, and this is what we are seeing now.

We need to stop the flow of ethnic Russians and other non-indigenous ethnic groups from the region (you mentioned this problem and it really is a serious matter). Some mechanisms are already in place. A whole number of organisations are working in this area and are ready to share their experience. It is also extremely important to work on keeping the indigenous intelligentsia and cultural figures in the region, because their outflow is having a very negative impact on the region’s social and economic, public, and legal wellbeing. The region’s people want to see not just effective counterterrorism measures from the authorities, but also guarantees for security and justice for the civilian population. Focusing only on eliminating the terrorists does not solve the problem as a whole because the armed gangs are always recruiting new members to their ranks from among local youth.

Another significant circumstance is that these gangs have no problem getting money. Our information shows that earlier, most of the money was coming from abroad, but now a lot of the money is coming from internal sources in the republics themselves in the form of forced taxes and payoffs from local businesspeople and corrupt officials. 

The evidence suggests that the armed gangs have taken on a new job – acting as hired killers to get rid of various parties involved in inter-clan conflicts. In their battles for ‘lucrative posts’ the local elites often call on the armed gangs to help them remove rivals. This practice is spreading, unfortunately, and these battles for official posts now take place at every level from village head to minister in regional governments. Some areas have seen an increase in the number of cases of law enforcement officials, even district police heads, making payoffs to the armed gangs in return for their own security.

Mr President, you are absolutely right in saying that the selfless law enforcement officers who risk their lives and perform their duties honestly deserve our praise. I was also in Kizlyar after the terrorist attack there and I must say that the tragedy that took place there and the amazing spirit of the law enforcement officers, who are doing everything they can, made a very deep impression on me. We need to encourage these people both materially and morally, encourage them substantially. You are right to state the issue this way. But when their hard work, which goes hand in hand with daily risk and often with real feats, is undermined by the acts of their dishonest colleagues this has serious consequences for society and really is a huge pity for the honest officers, a huge pity indeed. 

Arbitrary action against civilians by the law enforcement and security officials, acts such as abductions, unlawful detention and interrogation methods, extortion and bribes for releasing those detained or killed, only plays into the hands of the terrorists, as you rightly said. This is one of the factors that armed gangs use to their advantage to recruit youth into their ranks and justify their criminal methods. The ban on giving the bodies of liquidated terrorists to their families has given rise to a terrifying business (especially given Islamic and local customs regarding burial), in which law enforcement and security officials bargain a price for everything from the bodies of killed terrorists to photographs of corpses in the morgue and photographs of the sites where they are buried. The families buy back these corpses by whatever means possible and often end up contributing new recruits for the armed gangs. TV reports showing the bodies of liquidated bandits also contribute to this. These reports, played over and over before the dead bandits’ families’ eyes, are also an effective recruitment tool. This is work for the psychologists, and it is something we should not ignore.

The instances of fabricated criminal cases that take place are dangerous not just in that innocent people are condemned. These cases are quite frequent and we receive many complaints about them. They are dangerous also in that the real terrorists are left to run free and continue their crimes, while deliberately falsified information gains legal and official status. 

Maybe we should consider the possibility of offering incentives to law enforcement and military personnel working in the region not based on the number of terrorists liquidated, but on the level of stability achieved, as expressed by a drop in the number of terrorism-related crimes.

Searching for missing persons and identifying the dead remain very serious problems in the region. Everyone I meet with, no matter in which of the republics, all raise this issue. 

Mr President, the council addressed you on this issue. You gave an instruction to the relevant agencies to examine the different possibilities for carrying out this work, but there has been no answer yet, unfortunately. I hope that the state agencies will address this issue. Something needs to be done about this problem. 

The security and law enforcement agencies need to enforce a zero tolerance policy to cases of abduction, torture, execution without trial, destruction of property, extortion, bribes, and blackmail of suspects’ families. A system of ‘hotlines’ should be set up, where people can call with complaints about breaches of the law by the law enforcement agencies, and the courts and supervisory bodies need to be strengthened. In a number of the North Caucasus republics – I won’t name them, you know them yourself – the courts have completely discredited themselves. Something needs to be done about this too. People should not be left to think that they are powerless before cruelty and lawlessness. The authorities and citizens must make a real concerted effort (and I think in large part this is why we are here today) to prevent consolidation of protest movements around the armed underground gangs. 

These are just some of the problems. My colleagues will develop these issues. I will end by saying something that we all know, but that I have to say nonetheless: we must not let this region become isolated from our country’s overall development. We must not let this happen. This is our biggest task. These are our people.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you, Ms Pamfilova.

I will just say a couple of words and then we will continue our discussion. On the subject of [North Caucasus society’s] isolation from the national social and economic space, what you say is right, of course, but let’s try to be objective about the situation. I am in no way idealising the situation in the North Caucasus today, and indeed, I have made efforts to bring the problems in the North Caucasus to the attention of our country as a whole, including those who ordinarily give this region little thought. This was why I spoke about the situation there in my Address to the Federal Assembly, for example. And you no doubt noted that I spoke about the situation in rather critical terms. But on this idea of the region becoming isolated from the rest of the country, I do not think the situation is quite so black and white, and I do not think this process is intensifying. Compared to the 1990s this is not the case. This does not mean that things have improved in every respect, but in many areas there have been changes for the better. In the 1990s there was no real government at all, not in the Caucasus, or in the country as a whole, if we want to be honest about it.

The situation has changed since then. It is not ideal and there are still many problems, especially in the North Caucasus, but there has been change. I therefore think that we need to be objective about the state of affairs, not dramatise things, but at the same time, make sure we see the full picture, including the problems that we still need to address.

You named several of these problems. I think our colleagues will develop on these issues in their remarks. In the North Caucasus context, making use of institutions such as the council of elders that you mentioned would be a very reasonable step indeed. The only thing would be to work out which kinds of issues this sort of council could examine, and how to turn its advice and proposals into practical measures. It is not so difficult to gather a group of old people together to discuss and address various problems, but it is another matter to make actual use of the results of these discussions. In other words, we need to work out how to link together the decisions that come out of these kinds of councils and the authorities’ action.

Regarding NGOs’ work, grants and so on, I imagine we will hear from our colleagues about the specific issues we could examine. You mentioned one thing that is, unfortunately, very true for the most part, namely that federal funds often do not reach their intended recipients. And this indeed begs the question as to where they end up.  We know where they end up. They are simply stolen, sometimes quite simply seized. You got funding through some federal programme or other – share it with the local bosses. This is what is happening. We cannot ignore this situation. It is very hard to catch these people out because they shelter behind the clan system and the mutual protection of local officials, often district heads, but we need to tackle this issue nonetheless. And those who do get caught out must face harsh penalties, or else we will never get the situation in order.    

You mentioned two things that I simply must respond to. One of the issues was something we have already discussed here during this council’s meetings. You said that the courts have completely discredited themselves in many respects. I categorically oppose speaking in these kinds of terms because this only undermines the legal system and leads to complete loss of respect for the courts. Yes, there are some judges that take bribes, some people afraid to make decisions. But if we start saying they have all discredited themselves what way out do we leave ourselves? What should we do, fire all the judges and appoint new ones? Our country already went through this in 1917. In this respect, I therefore ask you all please to be very careful in the terms you choose, because no matter what the problems with the courts, these are our courts and we must enforce their decisions.

On one final emotional issue, I do not claim to know the absolute truth, of course, but you said that we should not show various serious things such as the outcome of counterterrorist operations and bandits’ bodies, because this incites terrorists and pushes members of their families into joining the terrorist cause. Perhaps there is some truth in this. But do you think it is acceptable to show the bodies of terrorists’ victims? 

These are emotional reflections more than anything. I do not have an answer as yet. But it is clear that we certainly do need to be very careful in how we deal with such matters, and in this respect I agree with what you said, Ms Pamfilova.

* * *

You know, this is the right discussion. It is very diverse in terms of the speeches made and the words said, and not because we have different people sitting here at one table, - we are all different, but because we have actually specified two principal questions that are of great concern to us as regards the [North] Caucasus.

On the one hand, the speeches project such great pain as to what is happening there, the reasons behind it, and how to deal with it, and on the other hand, there is, as we say, a positive aspect to today’s agenda: looking at how to proceed in this situation.

I understand that many things, such as social and economic programmes, the creation of tourist clusters, and others things, pale beside the passional, the list of people killed there, and that no one will ever be able to give these victims back to their loved ones. Right now, I’m not going to talk in depth about this problem, the causes, or even whom they [the victims] sided with. But I feel that under no circumstances should we play off one against another.

I don’t support the idea that first we need to deal with extrajudicial killings and kidnappings and track down every affiliate to these killings, like this is the most important thing, while the rest is penny-ante. I think that if we follow this principle, we will never make life in the Caucasus normal. We need to deal with many issues at the same time, and really, we need to work on the future that should unite everybody. Thus, I would like to say that overall, I support the idea of creating various new structures that would operate under the plenipotentiary envoy or in some other way; perhaps, they can even operate under the President, if we all feel that this could work. After all, our today’s meeting is the first one. We spent a fairly long time preparing for it, but still our views and positions are too different, which is probably a good thing. But I think that a public council under the plenipotentiary envoy is absolutely the right way to go. I am giving Mr Khloponin instructions on this matter. We can certainly create such a structure and the council of elders as well, as discussed earlier. We just need to think about what it will be like, and most importantly, how to ensure that its decisions are effective, rather than just an attempt to blow off steam, which is what often happens with groups like this.

Nearly all of today’s speeches mentioned the very right idea that a significant number of people living in the Caucasus need to be integrated as full-fledged members of Russian society. This may sound bookish, but it’s true. We also need to move toward the creation of a full-fledged Russian identity that includes all our peoples, as was also rightly noted. That is precisely why I reacted so sharply to our colleague’s slip of the tongue when, in his speech, he contrasted the republic and Russia as a whole. Our task is to create a new Russian identity. If we are unable to do it, then our nation is in for a very dire fate.

But you know, human experience shows that everything is possible. The 19th century events in various countries demonstrate that today’s successful nations were formed as a result of very difficult events. Yes, we have been unable to recreate the community, the solidarity we had in Soviet times, but we know what it was like back then and how, in many ways, it was quite false. Still, we have the strength and all the possibilities to create our own identity – a new Russian identity, as the speakers said. I want to repeat again that these things may garner some loud reactions, but we have to think about it; otherwise, we will only work on very depressing issues, and we will have no vision of the future. A person cannot live without such a vision.

I want to talk about specific problems that were brought up here by the speakers. As we have always agreed with Ms Pamfilova, along with several members of the Presidential Council, in this case, I am appealing to everyone present: if you have any documents, any papers for me to look at, I have decided that following this meeting I will personally look at the, without passing this task on to the Presidential Executive Office or someone else. Thus, I am ready to respond personally to your papers, although this does not guarantee that I’ll be able to look into them quickly or successfully, for obvious reasons; still, at the very least, they will be dealt with by the President.

There is another matter that I need to talk about. The governors of Russia’s regions within the North Caucasus Federal District are all different people with different experience, although recently, as you know, I have made a number of decisions to make changes to the list of governors and bring in some new people.

I have just one, personal request to everyone. Please do not pit them against one another. People in the Caucasus are very sensitive and quick to take offence. People are touchy in general, but particularly so in the Caucasus. Many of the people here today are from the Caucasus, so you know this. As soon as people start to say that Kadyrov is bad and Yevkurov is good… Everyone has flaws, we all know this, and if you think that I don’t know some of the facts, well, that’s not the case. I know more than anyone else here, because it is my job to know. Have no doubt; I know some very sad things. But we don’t need to pit people against each other even if you do not like someone for some reason, or think that they are a person who is making erroneous or even bad decisions, because ultimately, this can cause even more harm.

But on the other hand, this does not mean that you need to remain silent about problems. They need to be spoken about openly and directly, just as you did today, with some of you using some very harsh words. I am happy that you spoke about these things here in this hall, at the Kremlin. Many of you have probably wanted to say them to me for a long time. At the very least, that is the purpose of today’s meeting.

Moreover, I’ve grown convinced that the human rights movement in the Caucasus is alive. It is not an underground movement, despite the difficulties you face, since this work is always difficult – and incidentally, not only in Russia; we should not idealise other nations. This is difficult work in general, but nevertheless, you are saying everything you feel necessary and doing what you believe is right. And that is the purpose of your work.

I’ll say a few words on socio-economic problems, rather than issues related to law enforcement. I absolutely agree that the deterioration of education has led to some very unfortunate consequences in the Caucasus. In general, when education deteriorates, it tends to create a society that starts functioning under alternative laws. And so, we need to pay close attention to the problems that our system of general education faces, that the healthcare system in the Caucasus faces, because this, too, is an important element in our lives, a criterion we use to assess government performance.

What you said about schools being closed down in villages and small communities is a very dangerous trend. Regardless of any per capita funding ideas (an idea I myself promoted), you are absolutely right in saying that we cannot just proceed by the numbers. If a school is closed in the centre of Russia, at worst, there will be another school within ten or twenty kilometres where those children can be taken. In the Caucasus, however, this is often impossible for a variety of reasons – for example, it may simply not be possible to get there. And so, perhaps we need to prepare instructions, Mr Surkov [Vladislav Surkov, First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office], on creating some kind of separate programme for having small schools in the Caucasus. And naturally, I am appealing to my plenipotentiary envoy, Mr Khloponin, to also consider this issue. It is an even more serious problem than small schools in central Russia. The same is true of problems related to medical assistance and midwife centres. The healthcare system requires our close attention. There are some things we may not think much about, which they were nevertheless very interesting for me to hear about today on an emotional level – regarding the number of roadblocks and checkpoints, for example. I will think about how to deal with this.

There are some very serious issues, which require us to make responsible decisions. One of the speeches mentioned the idea of a body identification laboratory in the republic. If it is impossible to work on this saddening problem without one, then we need to create such a laboratory.

Many true things were said that sound more ideological rather than practical, but which I am fully ready to sign onto; for example, what many of you said about the inefficiency of extrajudicial repression, even without looking at the moral implications of this problem. Indeed, that is precisely why I am very sensitive to statements about courts; this is not the first time that I am talking about it with members of this group. Because everything else may bring only temporary results, but the effects will be quite the opposite. I think it is good that you feel the same way about this. It means that we have similar views on this problem.

There are some areas where we need to be more careful with terminology that we use – at least, it is like that for me. I will not accept the term ‘partisan war,’ which is a term that has even been used in some of our colleagues’ speeches today. How is it a partisan war if its participants are militants and terrorists? They are either terrorists, or partisans. Unfortunately, our human rights colleagues in the West often make this mistake, but it seems to me that we ought to be more careful and accurate in using these terms. This is not a partisan war.

I absolutely agree with Ms Alekseyeva that we truly need what you briefly described as a simultaneous restoration of trust and an effort to eliminate unlawful armed groups. That is the most accurate way to put it. And the governors who are prioritising work in these two areas have a chance at success. It is the governors’ sacred duty to engage in dialogue with various forces operating in the North Caucasus republics. They do not need to talk with the armed groups, but it is their responsibility to engage in talks with different forces. And the governors who are not doing this must ultimately leave, because otherwise, they will not achieve anything. Personnel decisions I have made in this regard – I am not going to give any names, you are all smart people and know who I am referring to – were made because some of our colleagues working as governors in the North Caucasus Federal District lost contact with the various civil forces, and simply hid behind the fence without doing anything, living in their bubbles.

The second note I would like to make with regard to Ms Alekseyeva’s speech concerns the idea of holding a major conference that would bring together human rights activists and politicians in the Caucasus. I have no objection to this, and am ready to give respective instructions. Mr Khloponin, please give it a thought; we could perhaps do it in Stavropol, or somewhere else. What’s important here is that we need a well-prepared, open and sincere conference, moreover, a conference that would produce concrete decisions. Incidentally, if we hold this conference, then different authorities need to attend – not just the plenipotentiary envoys or members of the federal government. It needs to also bring together members of law enforcement, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the FSB, the police, the investigative committee – in other words, everyone who is working on these issues. We need to have a real dialogue. It cannot be a monologue by members of the government or a monologue by human rights activists.

Colleagues, I am grateful to you for spending these two and a half hours at the Kremlin. This is our first experience discussing this topic. For me, it was useful, and I hope that it will lead to practical outcomes. I also hope that it was interesting for you as well. See you next time.