8. Para. 33 [See new paragraph 56]: “It has to be recognised that part of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia resists integration”. Many researchers concluded that the main problem is that the very concept of integration is interpreted in different ways by the government and the Russian-speaking community: while the official policies stress acquisition of the Latvian language, and acceptance of the “official” version of history, citizenship legislation and language policies as the main criteria for integration, the Russian-speakers emphasise that integration is a two-way road, and advocate the need to ensure their effective participation in decision-making, and recognition of and respect to their distinct identity – in particular, by adapting the system of state government to the multicultural and multilingual nature of the Latvia’s society. In other words, the questions is whether the respect to cultural diversity and full implementation of minority rights is a part of the integration concept or not. Thus, the statement quoted above is somewhat misleading – it would be better to stress the differences in approaches to the integration concept.
9. Para. 33 and footnote 5 [See new part 56 and footnote 8]: the footnote is very essential, indeed. However, the real picture is even more salient. It is worth mentioning that the pre-election programme of the Latvian People’s Front (LPF) in 1990 elections (when, for the last time, all residents were allowed to vote) contained a provision which for any practical reason could not be understood otherwise than “the zero option” (i.e. citizenship for everybody). This was one of the reasons why many Russian-speakers voted for the LPF then, thus ensuring its constitutional majority and the restoration of independence by parliamentary way. Thus, the non-citizens believe, and not without good reasons, that the legislators elected by them simply deprived their own electors of political rights, meanwhile keeping their mandates. Under these circumstances, the word “misunderstanding” hardly reflects the reality, and it is simply not true that “such sentiments are …without foundation”. As one of the LPF leaders, A. We chose deception” (Latvia – whose homeland? Report about the conference organized by the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Riga: Goete Institute, 1994, in Latvian).
10. Para. 34 [See new paragraphs 53 and you may 54]: 42% is the figure for those ethnic Russians who were registered as citizens since they could trace their roots back to the citizens of the pre-war Latvia, not the number of those arrived after WW2.
The shape 6000 into Russian-speaking associations appears greatly overestimated, constantly 2 right up until cuatro countless him or her formally joined (and lots of dozens most performing) was said
11. Para. 35 [See new section 60]: “Everyone agreed that the cultural rights of the minorities were respected. The NGOs also agreed that legislation complied with the minimum recommendations escort service Norman OK made by international organisations (the OSCE and the Council of Europe)”.
Panteleevs, informed into the 1994: “We had a choice – either so you can deceive [the new Russian-speakers], or even to take
The fresh new statement sounds a while uncommon – what exactly is designed just like the “social rights”? ‘s the right to education when you look at the mom tongue, or even the directly to fool around with fraction code in advance of social government provided? And preciselywhat are these “minimal suggestions”? Such, one another OSCE additionally the Council out-of European countries consistently needed to offer the brand new voting legal rights at the civil elections to possess non-citizens, and this refers to obviously not accompanied.
Regarding specific NGO agencies which participated in this new meetings that have the fresh new rapporteur, We read completely different sort of whatever they told you. I am frightened that the paragraph will be contested within the Latvia to the strictly factual base, and therefore credibility of the whole statement could well be asked.