LATVIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (F.I.D.H.)
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
NATIONAL MINORITIES
IN THE
RIGA
2002
Compiled by:
© Tatyana Bogushevitch, 2002
© Alexei Dimitrov, 2002
© Yuri Dubrovsky, 2002
© Boris Koltchanov, 2002
© Leonid Raihman, 2002
Edited by Alexei Dimitrov and Boris Koltchanov
All rights reserved. Full acknowledgement of author, publisher and source
must be given.
PART I
1. Introduction
Since the restoration of independence, human rights have been high on
Latvia’s agenda, as the country strived to break away from its totalitarian
past, embrace western values and standards and integrate into the western
political, economic and security structures. Minority rights, although being an
integral part of the general European human rights framework, proved to be more
difficult to implement in Latvia, taking into account concerns over the
preservation of Latvian national identity and newly restored statehood -
concerns, which are being constantly stirred up by certain part of Latvian
political elite.
The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was
signed by
Main arguments against the ratification mentioned during the
parliamentary debate were the following:
- the legislation of Latvia already provides sufficient protection for national
minorities,
- the term "national minority" is not defined in legislation,
- ratification of this convention is not an indicator of the level of democracy
and respect to human rights, as several European countries have not even signed
the Convention,
- it is exclusively up to the government to decide when the ratification of the
Framework Convention could be initiated.
To some extent, reluctance to ratify the Convention was aggravated by
the fact that it is a “document of principles”, which leaves a broad margin of
interpretation to its state parties in respect of the choice of methods of
implementation of the Convention’s principles. Thus, on the one hand, the
ruling parties were able to misinterpret the Convention is if the latter would
require
In the nearest future,
However, the state institutions have been reluctant to conduct any
preparatory work preceding the ratification and necessary for successful
implementation of the Convention’s principles. There is a lack of understanding
within the society at large concerning necessary changes in
The present report is aimed to fill in this gap.
In our work, we tried to follow the outline, adopted by Committee of
Ministers for state reports. Part I of this report provides general information
about
2. Information on the status of international law in the domestic legal
order
Legal
Article 89 of the Constitution provides that the State acknowledges and
protects basic human rights according to the Constitution, Laws and
international agreements binding to
Implementation
In practice the courts of law refer to provisions of international human
rights treaties in their judgements quite rarely. However, the Supreme Court
and especially the
3. Summary overview of the history.
3.1. Political history overview
The
3.2. Demographic history overview
During the Soviet era, a mass in-migration from other republics of the
4. Present demographic situation
As of
Residents of
|
Ethnicity |
Citizens |
Non-citizens |
Foreigners |
Total |
% |
|
Latvians |
1358721 |
2941 |
804 |
1362466 |
58,3% |
|
Russians |
317542 |
343710 |
18962 |
680196 |
29,1% |
|
Belorussians |
24722 |
66144 |
1700 |
92566 |
4,0% |
|
Ukrainians |
9347 |
48218 |
3488 |
61053 |
2,6% |
|
Poles |
39959 |
17789 |
417 |
58165 |
2,5% |
|
Lithuanians |
16507 |
14742 |
1200 |
32449 |
1,4% |
|
Jews |
6442 |
3457 |
292 |
10191 |
0,4% |
|
Estonians |
1466 |
856 |
280 |
2602 |
0,1% |
|
Others |
16630 |
16441 |
4059 |
37130 |
1,6% |
|
Total |
1791336 |
514298 |
31202 |
2336818 |
100,00% |
Source: Data of the Population Register as of
5. “Majority in minority” situations
In a number of localities in
It has to be noted, however, that there is no municipality where
political parties representing only ethnic and / or linguistic minorities have
acquired majority of seats in local self-government. In other words, in no
municipality in
PART II
Article 1
The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of
persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international
protection of human rights, and as such falls within the scope of international
co-operation.
The
Within the framework of the United Nations, Latvia is a party to a few
instruments, to mention only the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights (recognised as binding on May 4, 1990; in force since July 14, 1992) and
its Optional Protocol (ratified on April 28, 1994; in force since September 22,
1994) enabling an individual to submit individual communication to the Human
Rights Committee, as well as the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (recognised as binding on May 4, 1990; in
force since May 14, 1992) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(ratified on September 4, 1991; in force since May 15, 1992).
Within the framework of the Council of Europe, Latvia is a party to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(ratified on June 4, 1997; in force since June 27, 1997) and its protocols
(except the Protocol No. 12 and 13; bill on ratification of the Protocol No. 13
was forwarded to parliamentary committees on October 17, 2002). It enables an
individual to submit individual application to the European Court of Human
Rights.
The principle of the rule of law and equality before the law is
established by the Constitution of the
Article 114 of the Constitution declares that persons belonging to
national minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language,
ethnic and cultural distinctiviness. At the same time the Law on the
Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural Autonomy of Latvia’s National
and Ethnic Groups (1991) is quite out-dated, declarative and does not provide
effective mechanism of judicial protection. There is no information about any
case, when its provisions would be invoked in court.
Conclusions
In general, the legislation of
1. To ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities without reservations and declarations.
2. To adopt the national Law on the Protection of Minority Rights based
on the provisions of the Framework Convention and to establish a new state
institution responsible for minority affairs.
3. To ratify as a matter of priority the Protocol No. 12 to the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
4. To take measures aimed at compliance of the domestic legislation with
the EU Council Directive 2000/43/EC of
Article 2
The provisions of this framework Convention shall be applied in good
faith, in a spirit of understanding and tolerance and in conformity with the
principles of good neighbourliness, friendly relations and co-operation between
States.
Conclusions
Article 3
1. Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right
freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage
shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are
connected to that choice.
2. Persons belonging to national minorities may exercise the rights and enjoy
the freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework
Convention individually as well as in community with others.
Legal
Article 114 of the Constitution states, that persons belonging to
national minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language,
ethnic and cultural identity, while Article 91 notes, that all persons are
equal before the law, and human rights are realised without any discrimination.
The Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural Autonomy of
Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups (1991) guarantees any citizen or
non-citizen of Latvia the right to declare his/her ethnicity according to
his/her ethnic self-identification or background in the order prescribed by law
(Section 2). No law provides a definition of national minority and no law
enumerates specific groups recognised as national minorities.
One’s ethnicity is recorded in the state database - Population Register
(the Law on the Population Register (1998), Section 10 para. 1). Such record is
mandatory, even for newborn babies - their ethnicity record is the same as one
of their parents. If the parents have different ethnicity registered, they can
choose one for their baby. The Personal Data Protection Law (2000), however,
qualifies information about one’s ethnicity as sensitive data (Section 2) and
imposes certain restrictions for access to such information.
On
The Law on Change of Name, Surname and Ethnicity Record (1994)
establishes the “blood” principle of ethnic determination, whereby ethnicity is
traced back to an individual’s predecessors. Individuals seeking to change
their ethnicity record are required to provide evidence that an ancestor was of
the desired ethnicity (Section 11 para. 1). When changing to Latvian ethnicity,
the applicant must also prove his/her command of the state language (Section 11
para. 2).
Implementation
Mandatory ethnicity record remains in the legislation of
Citizenship problem provides an additional source of controversy over
the notion of minority in
Factual
In October 1999 the Minister for Justice was asked by one of the
parliamentary factions about the ethnicity record in the CVs of the candidates to
the judge positions. According to the law, all judges are approved by Saeima,
and in all CVs submitted to the Saeima the candidates' ethnicity (practically
only 'ethnic Latvian') was mentioned.
According to the reply, mentioning ethnicity in judge candidates' CV was
not made mandatory by any of the official regulations, yet, the Ministry of
Justice simply "used to pass on MPs all data the candidate decides to
mention him/herself". 5
Certain controversy surrounds identity of population of Latgale
(Latgola, a region of
Conclusions
The Constitution and Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right to
Cultural Autonomy of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups provide for ethnic
determination based on ethnic identity for any citizen or non-citizen of
1. To effectively provide an opportunity to be treated as a person
belonging to national minority for any citizen and non-citizen of
2. To exclude provisions concerning mandatory ethnicity record from all
acts of legislation; to obtain data on ethnic structure of the population only
by the population census.
Article 4
1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national
minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the
law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national
minority shall be prohibited.
2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary,
adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social,
political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons
belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this
respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons
belonging to national minorities.
3. The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered
to be an act of discrimination.
Paragraph 1
Legal
Article 91 of the Constitution contains a general equality clause stating
that all persons in
This principle is further elaborated in a number of laws. For example,
Section 7 of the new Labour Law (adopted in 2001, came into force on June 1,
2002) provides that everyone has equal rights to employment, fair, safe and
healthy working conditions, as well as to fair remuneration for work; these
rights have to be ensured without any direct or indirect discrimination based
on person’s race, colour, gender, age, disability, religious, political or
other opinions, national (ethnic) or social origin, property and family status
and other circumstances.
Section 3 of the Education Law (1998) provides that every citizen of the
Republic of Latvia and every person who has the right to a passport of
non-citizen issued by Latvia, person to whom a permanent residence permit has
been issued, as well as citizens of the European Union states to whom temporary
residence permits have been issued, and their children have equal rights to
receive education regardless of property and social status, race, ethnicity,
gender, religious or political opinions, health condition, occupation and place
of residence.
Section 4 para. 2 of the Judicial Powers Law (1992) provides that
judgements shall be delivered by the court irrespective of person’s origin,
social or property status, race and ethnicity, gender, education, language,
religious affiliation, type and nature of occupation, place of residence,
political or other views.
The Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural Autonomy
of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups (1991) declares that the residents of
the
It should be mentioned that the data on, inter alia, person’s race and
ethnic origin, are regarded as sensitive data by the Personal Data Protection
Law (2000), which prohibits the processing of sensitive personal data except
with the consent of the data subject and for limited other purposes (e.g. for
protection of one’s life or health, court proceedings etc) (Section 11).
There are some specific grounds on which a person cannot be
discriminated against mentioned in different acts of legislation. Importantly,
with the exception of the out-dated Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right
to Cultural Autonomy of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups, that contains
rather declarative provisions and does not provide for an enforcement
mechanism, there are no laws targeting specifically discrimination on the basis
of racial or ethnic origin, or nationality. However, all laws and subordinate
acts have to conform with the equality clause of Article 91 of the Constitution
as the highest legal norm, lest they be unconstitutional. 6
Implementation
Different acts of legislation require a person to be the citizen of
International standards do not provide a clear-cut evaluation of this
situation. For example, the International Convention on Elimination of Racial
Discrimination stipulates that differences in rights of citizens and
non-citizens are not covered by the Convention. On the other hand, legislative
distinctions that result in unjustifiable, indirect discrimination on grounds of
race, ethnicity or language breach international norms. 8 The European Commission
also criticised these differences in rights 9
Factual
Survey data suggests the problem of discrimination and human rights
violations may be widespread. A survey conducted in 2000 showed 24% of all
respondents (or 18% of ethnic Latvians and 31% of non-Latvians, 20% Latvian
citizens and 33% non-citizens, 25% men and 22% women) believe they experienced
discrimination in the last three years. 10
Among those respondents who acknowledged violation of their rights, the largest
group (28%) indicated ethnic origin as the basis for the violations of their
rights (11% of Latvians and 40% of non-Latvians, 17% of Latvian citizens and
43% of non-citizens). The second most usual basis for human rights violations
(indicated by 24% of respondents) was language (7% of Latvians and 40% of
non-Latvians, 15% of Latvian citizens and 37% non-citizens). Existence of the
problem was further confirmed by another survey carried out in 2001. The survey
revealed 3% of citizens and 46% of non-citizens consider citizenship to be the
main cause for violations of their human rights, 7% of citizens and 39% of
non-citizens see language as the basis for human rights violations and 6% of
citizens and 31% of non-citizens consider ethnic origin as the basis for
violations of their rights. 11
At the same time there is no information about any case in court
concerning discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin. It shows that it is
necessary to inform the residents about the existing legal mechanisms for the
protection of their rights in the case of discrimination and to establish more
effective system of protection.
See also relevant information under Article 15.
In February 2002 the Russian-language daily "Vesti Segodnya"
("The News Today") reported about the next case when the
protectionist (or discriminatory on the basis of language) taxation rules are
applied. The Latvian Law on VAT (value added tax) stipulated that the
publications of original literary works in the Latvian language were exempted
from VAT, while original books published in the minority languages were subject
to 18% VAT (Section 6, para. 1 subpara. 20 of the Law on VAT). This provision
is in force till
Paragraph 2
No specific measures designed to promote full equality or compensate for
the disadvantages linked with ethnic origin currently exist in
Paragraph 3
No measures are adopted in accordance with paragraph 2.
Conclusions
The legislation of
1. To adopt a national Anti-Discrimination Law, which
would prohibit, inter alia, discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin,
language and citizenship status and establish a state institution responsible
for anti-discrimination activities.
2. To review acts of legislation providing citizenship and/or state
language proficiency requirements in different spheres in order to comply with
anti-discrimination law, taking into account legitimate public interests and
the principle of proportionality.
Article 5
1. The Parties undertake to promote the
conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain
and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their
identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.
2. Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of
their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or
practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities
against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at
such assimilation.
Paragraph 1
Legal
Article 114 of the Constitution states, that persons belonging to
national minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language,
ethnic and cultural identity. The Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right
to Cultural Autonomy of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups (1991) guarantees
Latvia’s national minorities the right to celebrate their national holidays,
use national symbols and preserve their traditions (Section 8). Besides that,
state institutions have an obligation to promote development of education,
language and culture of national and ethnic groups living in
The State Language Law (1999) considers all minority languages (except
for the Liv language) to be “foreign”. At the same time, the Law does not
regulate language usage in “unofficial communication among individuals,
internal communication of ethnic and national groups and language usage in
religious activities” (Section 2 para. 3).
According to the Education Law (1998), state-supported university
education is provided only in the state language since
Implementation
Main efforts of the state aimed at promoting culture of national
minorities are concentrated on modest financial support for cultural
associations and minority NGOs. Such support is provided by the state budget,
as well as by the Society Integration Foundation (within the framework of
implementation of the Society Integration Programme).
Factual
In 2002 the Latvian authorities allocated 14,490 Lats (approx. EUR
25,880) for support of different national cultural associations. This money is
distributed by the Department on Minority Affairs of the Naturalisation Board.
Besides that 10,000 Lats (approx. EUR 17,860) were allocated as a subsidy for
the Association of National Cultural Associations; 45,000 Lats (approx. EUR 80,360)
were allocated as a subsidy for the National Cultural Association of Roma. The
state also allocated 12,000 Lats (approx. EUR 21,430) for establishing of the
museum “Jews in
The Society Integration Foundation (state foundation responsible for
allocation of money for projects in the field of integration of the society) in
2002 received 282,000 Lats (approx. EUR 503,580) as a subsidy from the state
budget and 165,000 Lats (approx. EUR 294,650) as a part of foreign financial
aid.
In February 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the first
projects’ competition in different fields. There were 2 relevant programs in
the field of ethnic integration:
- the program of support for NGOs’ projects in the field of ethnic integration
(the total funds for the program were 10,000 Lats (approx. EUR 17,800); NGOs,
education bodies and cultural organisations could apply);
- the program of support for minority cultural associations (the total funds
were 15,000 Lats (approx. EUR 26,700); minority cultural associations and
education bodies could apply).
In July 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the second
projects’ competition in different fields. There were 2 relevant programs in
the field of ethnic integration:
- the program of support for NGOs’ projects in the field of ethnic integration
(the total funds for the program were 5000 Lats (approx. EUR 8930));
- the program of support for minority cultural associations (the total funds
were 5,000 Lats (approx. EUR 8930)).
Paragraph 2
The Society Integration Programme (adopted on
Conclusions
Although the right to preserve and develop minority language, ethnic and
cultural identity is declared, it is not ensured by legislation and practice,
especially in the field of language use and education. The following measures
would contribute to better minority protection:
1. To review the Society Integration Programme in order to make the
principle of non-discrimination and respect to minority rights cornerstones of
the Programme, so that to guarantee the integration of the society on the basis
of common values and respect to minority rights.
2. To increase direct financial support from the state budget for
promotion of minorities’ activities aimed at preserving their culture,
religion, language and education and to increase the state’s subsidies for the
Society Integration Foundation.
3. To establish transparent and effective mechanism of allocation of the
state financial support for national minorities within the framework of the
state institution responsible for minority affairs.
Article 6
1. The Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural
dialogue and take effective measures to promote mutual respect and understanding
and co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of
those persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, in
particular in the fields of education, culture and the media.
2. The Parties undertake to take appropriate measures
to protect persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination,
hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or
religious identity.
Paragraph 1
Legal
The Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural Autonomy
of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups (1991) states that any activity, aimed
at national (ethnic) discrimination, as well as propagation of national
(ethnic) superiority and national (ethnic) hatred is punishable in accordance
with existing laws (Section 16).
The Law on Radio and Television (1995)
mentions about “national order”, which includes creation of TV-programs about
life and culture of minorities, living in
Implementation
In February 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the first
projects’ competition in different fields. There were 2 different relevant
programs in the field of ethnic integration:
- the program for schoolchildren’s exchange and co-operation (the total funds
are 10,000 Lats (approx. EUR 17,800); education bodies could apply);
- the program of support for media promoting unity of the society (the total
funds are 10,000 Lats (approx. EUR 17,800); PR companies could apply).
In July 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the second
projects’ competition in different fields. There were 2 relevant programs in
the field of ethnic integration:
- the program of support for media promoting unity of the society (the total
funds were 10,000 Lats (approx. EUR 17,800));
- the program of support for TV programs about integration issues (the total
funds were 16,000 Lats (approx. EUR 28,580));
Paragraph 2
Legal
Section 78 of the Criminal Law (1998) provides for punishment of actions
that intentionally limit - directly or indirectly - a person’s economic,
political or social rights or create direct or indirect advantages because of a
person’s race or ethnicity. It does not qualify the crime as “discrimination”,
although the title of the article speaks about “violation of ethnic and racial
equality”. Section 156 of the Criminal Law provides for punishment in cases of
intentional violation of person’s dignity or degrading her orally, in writing
or by action. Offences based on the ethnic or racial origin of the person could
be subsumed under this Section. 13 The same
considerations apply also to Section 157 of the Criminal Law dealing with cases
of intentional defamation, and Section 158 covering violation of person’s
dignity and defamation if done by using mass media.
Article 2352a of the Civil Law (1937) provides that everybody has the
right before the court to revoke information offending his/her honour and
reputation unless the distributor of the information proves that the
information is true. It is not clear whether an individual could use this
provision in cases when he/she feels offended by discriminatory remarks. The
crucial question here is, whether e.g. insulting a person because of his/her
ethnic origin could be qualified as dissemination of false information about
the person. 14
Implementation
Currently a number of remedies are available to persons who consider
themselves wronged by differential treatment; however, none of them is
specifically aimed at ensuring equal treatment. The institutions to which such
persons can turn to are:
1) the same public institution that has treated the person differently, or a
higher institution, or public prosecutor’s office;
2) the State Labour Inspection;
3) the National Human Rights Office;
4) courts of general jurisdiction
5) the Constitutional Court. 15
There is almost no case law related to discrimination on the basis of
one’s racial or ethnic origin. The main reasons of it are the lack of
information about possible measures to be taken, the long and expensive
procedure, as well as the problems regarding the burden of proof. It is hard to
prove person’s intent in criminal procedure. The victim of the act of
discrimination, hostility or violence has to prove himself/herself that such
act took place in civil or administrative procedure (Section 93 of the Civil
Proceedings Law) There are some exceptions from this general rule:
1) Section 29 para. 5 of the new Labour Law (came into force on June 1, 2002)
puts the burden of proof on the employer in the cases concerning differential
treatment on the grounds, inter alia, of race and ethnic origin;
2) the new Administrative Proceedings Law (comes into force on July 1, 2003)
envisages the principle of objective investigation in the administrative
procedure (Section 103). It should be mentioned that the abovementioned
provisions of the Labour Law cannot be applied by persons engaged at the state
civil service, as the State Civil Service Law (2000) does not provide it.
Factual
In 1999 a member of militia (Zemessardze), which forms part of the
National Military Forces, hired by an owner of a private cafe to perform
security functions, denied access to a cafe to a young person of Roma origin.
The militiaman had stated that the owner of the cafe had ordered that Roma
should not be allowed to enter. Later he denied that the reason for not
allowing entrance to the cafe was ethnic origin. The militia leadership
declared that the militiaman acted in accordance with internal regulations made
by the owner of a cafe so the latter bore all the responsibility. A file for a
criminal case was not opened.
In another case in 2000, the national TV news programme showed a
fragment about a woman swindler, Roma by ethnic origin, who had wheedled family
jewels out of 17-years-old girl. Authors of the fragment called "not to
look into eyes of the Roma" in order not be hypnotized. In the end of the
program a police officer called all the Roma in
In August 2000 the monthly business magazine "Kapitals"
("Capital") defined the subject of its issue No. 8, 2000 as
"Jews rule the world". In the article with the same name, as well as
in the commentary by the editor-in-chief Guntis Rozenbergs, Jews were named
"Zhids" - a word traditionally used in Latvian language, along with
"Ebrejs" which came into Latvian later. However, the former name is
perceived as insulting by many Jews. Jewish NGOs, as well as Israeli and
American embassies in
In spring 2001 the director of a private publishing house Aivars Garda,
announced a competition of essays on topics containing ideas of building
ethnically clean Latvian state and encouraging repatriation of “colonists”,
i.e., Russians. The competition resulted in a publication of a book containing
a spirit and remarks offending the honour primarily of persons of Russian
ethnic origin. Two members of the Parliament from the ruling coalition right
wing party "For Fatherland and Freedom" participated in the
presentation of the book. A file for a criminal case was not opened in relation
to Garda's activities, as the law enforcement authorities did not find that
Garda acted with a purpose of inciting racial hatred. 16 In
August 2002 Aivars Garda was registered as a MP candidate and leader of the
electoral list of the (Ethnic) Latvians’ Party. The party has not received any
seat at the parliamentary elections of 2002.
In December 2001 the magazine "Rigas laiks" ("
In May 2000 the Riga Regional Court delivered a judgement in a case
where 9 members of a pro-nazi organisation “Perkonkrusts” were convicted of a
number of offences (e.g. blowing up a water main, attempting to blow up a
monument, assault), including incitement of ethnic hatred. It took the form of
printing and distributing leaflets of anti-Semitic character and urging the
establishment of an ethnically pure state. All suspects were sentenced to
imprisonment from
The leader of this group Juris Recs was tried separately as he managed
to avoid the arrest for two years. In December 2000 a court found him guilty on
six accounts, including incitement of ethnic hatred as he was proved to be the
organiser of the printing and distributing the above-mentioned leaflets. He was
sentenced to 3 years in prison.
In January 2001, Guntars Landmanis, editor of the newsletter “Patriots”
was convicted to 8 months in prison by the
Conclusions
The abovementioned cases demonstrate clearly that there is a lack of
state efforts aimed at preventing and punishing acts of discrimination,
hostility or violence against persons belonging to national minorities. The
following measures would contribute to better minority protection:
1. To take appropriate measures in order to promote tolerance in the
society, especially in education and within the framework of the Society
Integration Programme.
2. To establish criminal liability for both intentional and
unintentional acts of discrimination, hostility and violence based on the
victim’s ethnic origin, culture, language or religion.
3. To establish civil liability for any act of discrimination, hostility
and violence based on the victim’s ethnic origin, culture, language or
religion.
4. To include legal provisions aimed at preventing of discrimination
into acts regulating the state civil service.
5. To introduce a reverse burden of proof in all civil and
administrative cases concerning alleged discrimination based on the victim’s
ethnic origin, culture, language or religion.
6. To grant the state institution responsible for anti-discrimination
activities the authority to represent the victim’s interests in any case
concerning discrimination.
Article 7
The Parties shall ensure respect for the right of every person belonging
to a national minority to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association,
freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Legal
In
The right of peaceful assembly in
The right of association in
The right to freedom of expression is provided by Article 100 of the
Constitution - “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
the right to freely receive, keep and distribute information and to express
their views. Censorship is prohibited.”
The right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion is provided by
Article 99 of the Constitution -“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. The church shall be separate from the State.”
At the same time in the Article 116 of the Constitution is pointed “The
rights of persons set out in Articles …, one hundred, one hundred and two, one
hundred and three, … of the Constitution may be subject to restrictions in
circumstances provided for by law in order to protect the rights of other
people, the democratic structure of the State, and public safety, welfare and
morals. On the basis of the conditions set forth in this Article, restrictions
may also be imposed on the expression of religious beliefs.”
Implementation
The abovementioned constitutional provisions are implemented, using
provisions of other acts of legislation (e.g. the Law on Radio and Television,
Law on Religious Organisations etc.), therefore relevant information is
available under corresponding articles of the Convention (in particular,
Articles 8, 9, 17).
Section 11 para. 4 of the State Language Law (1999) stipulates
that use of languages in meetings, marches and pickets is provided by the Law
on Meetings,
Article 8
The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to manifest his or her religion or belief and
to establish religious institutions, organisations and associations.
Legal
The Constitution of Latvia (Article 99) and the Law on Religious
Organisations (1995) declare separation of the Church from the state and
recognise the right to free manifestation of religion as well as the right to
establish religious institutions, organisations and associations. The Law on
Religious Organisations stipulates that only one Church can be registered by
each confession.
None of the existing religions is official in
The State Language Law does not restrict using of languages other than
state (Latvian) in religious ritual (Section 2 para. 3), though states that
everyone has a right to file applications and communicate in the state language
at religious organisations (Section 3 para. 2).
Implementation
Although there is no valid official statistics of how many people belong
to the confessions and available data are very approximate, the correlation
between one’s ethnic origin and belief in
Factual
In 1997 Mr Eglitis, director of Balozi primary school was fired for
granting a day off to the Russian stream of the school to celebrate the Russian
Orthodox Christmas. Director had given this day off upon the requests of the
pupils, their parents and the teachers. Municipality had warned Mr Eglitis for
granting these holidays. After Mr Eglitis disagreed with the warning and
protested against it, the municipality dismissed him.
Conclusions
There is no distinction between persons belonging to majority and
national minorities concerning the right to manifest religion or belief and to
establish religious institutions. In the meantime, the state officially recognises
religious holidays of denominations, most widespread among the majority group
(Lutheran and Catholic), but refuses to do the same in respect of
denominations, most widespread among the minorities (Orthodox and Old
believers), a practice considered as unwillingness to recognise holidays of
persons belonging to national minorities. The following measures would
contribute to better minority protection:
1. To guarantee the opportunity to celebrate religious holidays for any
believer, providing a certain number of days off per year, which are to be paid
for by employer.
Article 9
1. The Parties undertake to recognise that the right to freedom of
expression of every person belonging to a national minority includes freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas in the minority
language, without interference by public authorities and regardless of
frontiers. The Parties shall ensure, within the framework of their legal systems, that persons belonging to a national minority are
not discriminated against in their access to the media.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent Parties from requiring the
licensing, without discrimination and based on objective criteria, of sound
radio and television broadcasting, or cinema enterprises.
3. The Parties shall not hinder the creation and the use of printed media by
persons belonging to national minorities. In the legal framework of sound radio
and television broadcasting, they shall ensure, as far as possible, and taking
into account the provisions of paragraph 1, that persons belonging to national
minorities are granted the possibility of creating and using their own media.
4. In the framework of their legal systems, the
Parties shall adopt adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the
media for persons belonging to national minorities and in order to promote
tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.
Legal
Article 100 of the Constitution states “Everyone has the right to
freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep and
distribute information and to express their views. Censorship is prohibited.”
The usage of minority languages in printed media is not limited by the
Law on Press and Other Mass Media (1990).
Section 62 para. 2 and 3 of the Law on Radio and Television (1995)
states that:
”(2) Latvian Radio and Latvian Television shall produce their programmes for
the first distribution network as national programmes in the state language.
(3) Latvian Radio and Latvian Television programmes at the second distribution
network shall be primarily in the state language. Of the annual broadcasting
time, 20% may be allocated to broadcasts in the languages of ethnic minorities,
including in such broadcasting time also films and theatrical performances
sub-titled in the state language”.
Private electronic media are also subject to language restrictions: the
airtime for broadcasting in ‘foreign’ (including minority) languages cannot
exceed 25% of the total broadcasting time (Section 19 para. 5 of the Law on
Radio and Television).
Licensing of radio and TV operators is within the powers of the National
Council on Radio and Television (NCRT). NCRT issues broadcasting and
re-transmission permits (either according to the results of invitations to
tender or on the basis of a request), as well as special permits (licences) for
cable television and cable radio (radio transmission) operation (the Law on
Radio and Television, Section 46 para. 6). According to Section 42 of the Law
on Radio and Television NCRT ”shall be established by
the Saeima, electing nine members to it”.
Implementation
Printed media in
Within the framework of broadcasts in the languages of ethnic minorities
the great majority of time is given to Russian-language productions, but 30
min. radio broadcasts in languages of other minorities (Armenian, Azeri,
Belarussian, Estonian, Georgian, German, Greek, Jewish, Lithuanian, Polish,
Tatar and Ukrainian) are aired almost every day.
A few private radio and TV channels (e.g. LNT, Radio Pik) were punished
by NCRT for exceeding “language quotas”. Broadcasting of TV Riga, for example,
was temporarily suspended four times in 1998-1999. According to statistics of
NCRT, since 1996 the Council registered 62 complaints and imposed 38 sanctions
when private TV and radio companies did not observe the language restrictions,
i.e.: 21 warnings were issued to the broadcasters, 8 administrative sanctions
were imposed, 8 decisions about suspension the operations of the broadcasting
organisations were adopted, 1 lawsuit was brought in court in order to
terminate the operation of TV Riga. 18 It
should be mentioned that no member of the Russian-speaking minority has ever
been elected to the Council. As a rule, persons representing parties of the
ruling coalition were elected to the Council.
Factual
Until the end of 1999 the newspaper “Diena” (“The Day”) was the only
nation-wide newspaper published both in Latvian and Russian. Russian edition of
the newspaper was also most actively and consistently promoting the idea of
integration. The Russian-language outlet of “Diena” was closed mainly due to
financial reasons, and their Russian readers were offered to read
Latvian-language outlet. Since the beginning of 2000 there is not any
nation-wide bilingual newspaper.
While the official point of view is that the language restrictions for
electronic media should promote the state language as a factor of society
integration, practical impact of such restrictions is the opposite. Denied an
opportunity to receive Latvia-made broadcasts in their native tongue,
Russian-speakers embrace the modestly priced cable channels originating in
One case of "language quotas" in audiovisual media has been
brought before the
Conclusions
The legislative provisions do not establish restrictions for persons
belonging to national minorities for access to printed media. In the meantime,
the state policy concerning private electronic media runs counter to the
Framework Convention. In fact, one cannot establish electronic media
broadcasting in minority language. The following measures would contribute to
better minority protection:
1. To cancel language restrictions for broadcasting of private radio and
TV channels.
2. Instead of a limit not to be exceeded for programmes in languages
other than Latvian at Latvian Radio and Latvian Television, 20% of time at the
second distribution network could be considered as a share to be compulsorily
allocated to such programmes.
3. To review composition and principles of election of the National
Council on Radio and Television in order to promote representation of national
minorities in the Council.
Article 10
1. The Parties undertake to recognise that
every person belonging to a national minority has the right to use freely and
without interference his or her minority language, in private and in public,
orally and in writing.
2. In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally
or in substantial numbers, if those persons so request and where such a request
corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible,
the conditions which would make it possible to use the minority language in
relations between those persons and the administrative authorities.
3. The Parties undertake to guarantee the right of every person belonging to a
national minority to be informed promptly, in a language which he or she
understands, of the reasons for his or her arrest, and of the nature and cause
of any accusation against him or her, and to defend himself or herself in this
language, if necessary with the free assistance of an interpreter.
Paragraph 1
Legal
The Latvian language is the sole state language in the country. Language
legislation consolidates the role of Latvian and limits the usage of other
languages in education, electronic mass media, state service, and in
communications with public administrative bodies. In October 1998 the Saeima
(Parliament) included the provision that “the state language of the
The first Law on Languages was adopted in May 1989. It was amended
substantially in March 1992. The present State Language Law (1999) came into
force on
The Law recognises the right of minorities to use any language in
private (Section 1 para. 4), but limits it: the Law envisages state
intervention into the use of languages in the private sphere to a degree
determined by a “legitimate public interest”, such as matters affecting public
health, public safety and public order, and taking into account the principle
of proportionality (Section 2 para. 2). At the same time, the Law does not
regulate language usage in “unofficial communication among individuals,
internal communication of ethnic and national groups and language usage in
religious activities” (Section 2 para. 3).
Section 6 of the State Language Law provides that persons employed in
the state and municipal bodies, institutions and enterprises must know and use
the state language. Persons employed in private organisations and enterprises
must know and use the state language, if their activities concern “legitimate
public interest” or they execute public functions. The governmental regulations
"Requirements on Proficiency Degree in the State Language Required for
Performance of Professional and Positional Duties and the Procedure of Language
Proficiency Tests" determine the level of state language proficiency
necessary for such persons and the procedure of examinations of those individuals,
who received their education in a language other than Latvian.
The abovementioned regulations envisage 6 categories of the state
language proficiency. The "3 B" category (the highest one) is
necessary, for example, for heads of the state institutions, lawyers,
psychologists, secretaries. It requires ability to "hold a conversation in
different styles", to use different "means of linguistic
expression".
In private sphere an employer determines the necessary level of the
state language knowledge for employees in his/her business enterprise. In
November 2000 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted amendments to the
"Requirements on Proficiency Degree in the State Language Required for
Performance of Professional and Positional Duties and the Procedure of Language
Proficiency Tests" (2000) - a list specifying the required language
proficiency in the private sector connected with a legitimate public interest.
According to the adopted list, "3B" category is required for lawyers,
barristers, notaries, insurance agents, psychologists, teachers of the Latvian
language and literature, journalists working with texts in Latvian.
Before 2002 every deputy candidate at parliamentary and municipal
elections had to submit a copy of the state language proficiency certificate of
the highest level of proficiency, if he/she did not receive school education in
the Latvian language. In May 2002 the Saeima cancelled the state language
requirements for deputy candidates. The amendments followed the views adopted
by the UN HR Committee in the case Ignatane v.
Section 11 of the State Language Law provides that public events
organised by private persons and private organisations can be held in other
languages than the state one. The governmental regulations determine exceptions
from this general rule. Private persons, enterprises or associations, international
institutions, when organising public events, must translate into the state
language the information which relates to legitimate public interest, as well
as information about the event.
Administrative liability for violations of legislative acts concerning
use of languages is established in
Implementation
The main state institution responsible for the state language policy is
the State Language Centre. It controls observance of the State Language Law and
other legislative acts concerning the language policy.
According to the Statute of the State Language Centre, its officials
have the right to visit state and municipal institutions, private business
enterprises; to require elimination of "language violations"; to
summon persons to the Centre if violations of the State Language Law or other
acts are discovered; to inspect authenticity of the state language proficiency
certificate.
Before November 2001 officials of the State Language Centre had the
right “to take out and inspect state language proficiency certificates”. This
provision was implemented as the right to conduct additional examinations to
holders of the state language proficiency certificates. The amendments to the
"Requirements on Proficiency Degree in the State Language Required for
Performance of Professional and Positional Duties and the Procedure of Language
Proficiency Tests” followed the views adopted by the UN HR Committee in the case
Ignatane v. Latvia: since November 2001 additional examinations cannot be
conducted.
Paragraph 2
Legal
Article 104 of the Constitution establishes that “everyone has the right
to address the state or local government institutions with applications and
receive an answer to the points of fact”. Since April 2002 this article was
supplemented with the provision that everybody has the right to receive an
answer in Latvian.
The State Language Law prohibits state, municipal and judicial
institutions to accept written applications, statements and complaints from
private persons in any language other than Latvian except for some emergency
situations (calls for emergency medical help, cases of criminal violations or
other violations of law, calls for emergency help in cases of fire, crash or
other accidents) (Section 10 para. 2). Documents in “foreign languages” can be
accepted only when a certified translation into the state language is attached
(Section 10 para. 3). Translation and certification are costly procedures, and
the provision in fact deprives many persons belonging to minorities of the
opportunity to protect their rights in the state institutions (e.g. prisoners
or population of the poorest region of Latgale).
The Civil Proceedings Law (adopted in 1998, came into force on
Implementation
There is a different practice of implementation of the above-mentioned
legislative provisions. In fact some local governments have engaged
translators, who translate private persons’ applications from minority
languages into the Latvian language. In the meantime, other institutions follow
the Law strictly and do not communicate with population in languages other than
Latvian.
Factual
In 2000 the courts, the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs
and other official bodies systematically returned correspondence to prisoners
who had written letters in Russian. Around 2/3 of
In May 2001 the leading Latvian-language daily “Diena” published
information about how the Riga City Council treats incoming mail in different
languages. According to the newspaper, the mail board of the Riga City Council
does not register letters in Russian and send them back with request to write
in the state language. Heads of the Council's committees can consider
applications or complaints written in foreign languages, but in this case they
must register these letters themselves. However, letters written in English,
German or French are translated by the Council's translators. There were no
translators from Russian among the Council's staff then. In
The City Council of Daugavpils employs a translator, who helps the residents
of the city to translate their documents being handed in to the Council from
Russian into Latvian. However, only those residents, whose income does not
exceed minimum established by the City Council, are eligible for this free
service.
A person applied to the National Human Rights Office (NHRO) of
Paragraph 3
Legal
The Criminal Proceedings Code establishes that legal proceedings in
criminal matters are conducted in the state language, but the court, the judge,
the prosecutor and the investigation service can allow to
conduct the proceedings also in other languages, if the parties agree to
it. In any case, a person, who participates in the proceedings, but does not
know the language of the proceedings, is entitled to submit applications, give
evidence, submit petitions, get acquainted with documents and speak in court in
the language he or she understands, and to use assistance of an interpreter.
All documents, which are to be issued to such person, must be translated into a
language, which he/she understands (Section 16).
According to the State Language Law all documents must be submitted to court or
the Prosecutor’s Office in the state language
Factual
In December 2001 the Ministry of Interior proposed to the Cabinet of
Ministers to submit amendments to the State Language Law with the aim to allow
the police and border guards to send the evidence/testimonies without
translation to the Prosecutor’s Office or to court till
Conclusions
Lack of legal status for minority languages, excessive interference of
the state into use of languages in private sphere and lack of possibility to
communicate with the state authorities create a serious risk of incompliance of
1. To establish a legal status for minority languages in national
legislation.
2. To review obligations to know and use the state language in both
public and private sphere, taking into account the principle of
proportionality.
3. To review sanctions for violations of legislative acts concerning use
of languages, taking into account the principle of proportionality.
4. To establish the right to communicate orally and in writing in
minority languages with the state, municipal and judicial institutions in
municipalities inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities in
substantial numbers.
Article 11
1. The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to use his or her surname (patronym) and first
names in the minority language and the right to official recognition of them,
according to modalities provided for in their legal system.
2. The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to display in his or her minority language signs,
inscriptions and other information of a private nature visible to the public.
3. In areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging
to a national minority, the Parties shall endeavour, in the framework of their
legal system, including, where appropriate, agreements with other States, and
taking into account their specific conditions, to display traditional local
names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public
also in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand for such
indications.
Paragraph 1
Legal
Section 19 of the State Language Law (1999) states:
“(1) Personal names shall be reproduced in
accordance with the Latvian language traditions and shall be transliterated
according to the accepted norms of the literary language while observing the
requirements of paragraph 2 of this Section.
(2) In a person’s passport or birth certificate, the person’s name and
surname reproduced in accordance with Latvian language norms may be
supplemented by the historical form of the person’s surname or the original
form of the person’s name in another language transliterated in the Latin
alphabet if the person or the parents of a minor so desire and can provide
verifying documents.
(3) The spelling and the identification of names and surnames, as well
as the spelling and use in the Latvian language for personal names from other
languages, shall be prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers regulations”.
These provisions are implemented according to the Regulations of the
Cabinet of Ministers "On Writing and Identification of Names and
Surnames" (2000).
On
Implementation
The Latvian language grammar rules are particularly demanding (special
endings must be added, different for male and female's names, some double
letters are prohibited, application of diacritical signs when transliterating
minority and foreign names is controversial, etc.). This general problem of
proper application of the right of persons belonging to minorities to
"official recognition of their names in minority language" enshrined,
in particular, in the Framework Convention, is particularly complicated in
Latvia because of large-scale exchange of personal IDs: in Soviet passports
issued in Latvia, names in both Russian and Latvian were written, while the
USSR passports issued outside Latvia contained records either only in Russian
or in Russian and the language of the corresponding "Soviet national
republic". Meanwhile, officially recognised spelling in Latvian citizens'
and non-citizens' passports are only in Latvian.
Factual
In April 1999 Mrs. and Mr. S. won their trial against the Latvian
Citizenship and Immigration Board (CIB) in the Supreme Court of Latvia.
Spelling of their names as recorded in their IDs (the so-called non-citizens'
passports issued to former
In July 2001 the
The
The Court also recognised the provision determining the place where the
original form of the personal name in Latin transliteration is recorded in
citizens’ passports unconstitutional, and declared it invalid since
A similar case on the minority name spelling was registered in the
European Court of Human Rights in July 2001 (Kuharec v.
Mr. Russkih, whose son was born in the March 2001, was issued the son's
birth certificate, where the surname was written as "Ruskihs", i.e.
with one "s" in the middle (since consonants cannot be duplicated in
Latvian). In the father's ID issued prior to the adoption of the Regulations,
his surname is spelled as "Russkihs" - i.e. with added mandatory
Latvian ending "s" but still with duplicated "s" in the
middle. Thus, the son's name was distorted further. In response to the
complaint addressed to the State Language Centre, a relevant expert
institution, the plaintiff was notified that "his own surname was recorded
in wrong spelling in his passport". Instead of fixing the problem with his
son's name, he was invited to come to the passport office to change his own and
his wife's name records in their IDs. The case is particularly sensitive, because
the surname in question is ancient and directly related to the person's
identity - it means "Russian" in the Russian language, with
traditional ending widespread in
Mrs. Joffe has met a similar problem after passing through
naturalization. In September 2000, Mrs. Joffe, a naturalised Latvian citizen,
was issued a passport where her surname was written as "Jofe", i.e.
with one "f". The State Language Consultative Service ruled that
letter "f" cannot be duplicated in Latvian, but the historical form
of the surname "Joffe" can be written in the passport's section
"Special Marks", in order "to prevent possible mistakes and
complications".
Paragraph 2
Legal
The legislation currently in force does not prohibit to
display inscriptions and other information of a private nature visible
to the public in minority languages.
The requirements prescribed by the Section 21 of the State Language Law
(1999) for private business are the following:
“(7) If a foreign language is used along with the state language in
information, the text in the state language shall be in the foreground and
shall not be smaller in size or less complete in content than the text in the
foreign language.”
At the same time “information intended for the public provided by state
and municipal institutions, courts and agencies belonging to the judicial
system, state and municipal enterprises and companies in which the state or a
municipality holds the largest share of the capital shall be only in the state
language”. This rule has some exceptions, for example in the cases of
international events, emergency situations, epidemics or dangerous infectious
diseases, etc.
Implementation / factual
It should be mentioned that the previous (1992) language legislation
explicitly prohibited the use of minority languages in public displays
throughout the country. The gradual return of minority language inscriptions
started in October 2000, following the adoption of the legislation currently in
force.
One of the most popular Russian-language dailies offered free
advertising to enterprises, which display information on signboards in the
languages of national minorities. The daily's campaign was aimed at encouraging
private entrepreneurs to make use of the rights provided by law. However, some
politicians and state officials sharply criticized this action (for example,
former Head of the State Language Centre Mrs Dzintra Hirsa). They did not deny
that the action complies with the State Language Law, but maintain that it is
"a sign of disloyalty" and "can hinder the integration of the
society". 23
In April 2002 one of the factions in the Riga City Council had drafted
amendments to the municipal regulations stipulating that all signboards and
posters in
Paragraph 3
Legal
The current legislation provides for all place names, street names and
other topographical indications to be in the state language only. The only
exception is given to the so-called “Liv coast”, where the usage of Liv place
names can be used alongside Latvian ones.
This way, Section 18 of the State Language Law (1999) envisages that “in
the
Conclusions
Latvian legislation allows displaying information visible to the public
in minority languages, thus partially fulfilling the requirement set forth in
paragraph 2. However, Latvia does not comply with the rest of the principles
set out in the Article 11, since its legislation and practice does not
recognise individuals’ right to use names in minority languages and the right
to their official recognition (paragraph 1), and, albeit few exceptions,
prohibits public bodies and enterprises from displaying information visible to
the public in minority languages (paragraph 2), including topographical
indications intended for the public also in minority languages. The following
measures would contribute to better minority protection:
1.To
recognise individual’s right to use officially his/her personal name and
surname in the spelling form he or she prefers; envision a streamlined
procedure for restoration of desired spelling of individual’s personal name and
surname.
2. To amend the State Language Law so as to allow for general public
displays provided by public (state and municipal) bodies and enterprises to be
made also in minority languages.
3. To amend the State Language Law so as to ensure for traditional local
names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public
to be displayed also in minority languages, and set clear criteria determining
what demand is sufficient for minority language to be used is such indications.
Article 12
1.The Parties shall, where appropriate, take measures in the fields of
education and research to foster knowledge of the cultures, history, language
and religion of their national minorities and of the majority.
2.In this context the Parties shall inter alia provide adequate
opportunities for teacher training and access to textbooks, and facilitate
contacts among students and teachers of different communities.
3. The Parties undertake to promote equal opportunities for access to
education at all levels for persons belonging to national minorities.
Paragraph 1
Legal
Language legislation in
Implementation
The main body engaged in fostering the learning of the majority language
is the National Programme for Latvian Language Training. The Program was
elaborated with active participation of the UNDP Office in
However, assistance in Latvian language learning offered by this
programme is limited to a very narrow audience and is not available to the
great majority of individuals, whose native language is not Latvian. Neither
does the programme support the learning of the cultures, history, language and
religion of
Factual
In 2002 the National Programme for Latvian Language Training is
allocated 425,932 Lats (approx. EUR 760,590).
In July 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the second
projects’ competition in different fields. There was one relevant program in
the field of ethnic integration - the program for creation of a model of the
Latvian language training for adults (the total funds for the program was 2000
Lats (approx. EUR 3570))
The Head of the Naturalisation Board Mrs Aldermane informed in
mid-September, 2001, that 2000 non-citizens, who did not speak the Latvian
language, would have a possibility to attend the Latvian language courses free
of charge. The programme was financed by the governments of the
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Legal
Section 3 of the Education Law (1998) declares equal rights to education
regardless of race, ethnic origin and religious persuasion. However,
Implementation / factual
The Society Integration Programme (the main governmental initiative,
aimed at building inclusive society) does not consider minority educational
situation from the minority rights and anti-discrimination perspective and does
not deal with the problem of securing equal access to education at all levels
for minority members.
In practice, minorities tend to be underrepresented within education
system, both within schools and within the state-funded university education
institutions.
Within the body of pupils of elementary, primary and secondary schools
the share of minorities is slightly smaller than the share of respective groups
within the school-age population (5 to 19 years of age). Ethnic Latvians are
slightly over represented within the body of pupils of elementary, primary and
secondary schools. Probably, one of the reasons for minorities’ children
under-representation in schools is unfavourable social and economic situation
minority parents find themselves in (refer to the information provided under
the articles 4 and 15). However, a further research is necessary so as to find
the causes of minorities’ under representation in schools.
Table: School-age population compared to the body of pupils
|
Ethnic origin |
Population 5 to 19 (2000) |
Pupils (2001/02) |
||
|
|
Absolute numbers |
Percent distribution |
Absolute numbers |
Percent distribution |
|
Latvians |
329031 |
64.69 |
229034 |
67.97 |
|
Russians |
133511 |
26.25 |
83686 |
24.84 |
|
Belorussians |
11635 |
2.29 |
6464 |
1.92 |
|
Ukrainians |
9172 |
1.80 |
4690 |
1.39 |
|
Poles |
10583 |
2.08 |
5742 |
1.70 |
|
Lithuanians |
5102 |
1.00 |
2649 |
0.79 |
|
Others |
9555 |
1.88 |
4676 |
1.39 |
|
Total |
508589 |
99.99 |
336941 |
100.00 |
Sources: Data on population of 5 to 19 years of age: Results of the 2000
Population and Housing Census in
According to a recent study on ethnic representation in Latvia 27,
the share of minorities among teaching staff of the thirteen surveyed
state-funded universities tends to be around 17%, although two of surveyed
state universities employed no minorities among its staff at all (Riga School
of Economics and Vidzeme University College), while one university (situated in
the city of Daugavpils, where minorities constitute 84% of the population)
employed 54.5% of minorities among its staff 28 .
Although far fewer data were available regarding the composition of the student
body, study results suggest that minorities also tend to be under-represented
among the students of state-funded university education establishments:
generally around 14%, although in one university (Vidzeme University College)
minorities constituted only 1.6%, while in only one surveyed state university
(Latvian Maritime Academy) the share of minorities within the student body is
40,0%, thus approaching minorities’ share of the country’s overall population. 29
As the state-funded establishments
apparently do not ensure adequate opportunities for minority university-level
education, many minority members turned to private universities. Accordingly, the share of minorities within the staff of six surveyed
private universities is around 45%, although in one university (Riga Teacher
Training and Education Management Academy) minorities’ share is only 8.5%,
while at another (Institute of Transportation and Communications) it reaches
91% 30 .
The study’s data on private universities’ student body was insufficient,
because out of six surveyed only two universities provided information on
ethnic break-up of their student bodies: 84 and 83.7% were minority
representatives. Unlike other private universities surveyed, these two
universities provided instruction only in Russian; therefore these data cannot
characterise the situation in the private universities in general.
Table: Minority representation within the staff and the student body of
universities
|
Status |
Title |
Minorities within staff (%) |
Minorities within the student body (%) |
|
State |
|
11.4 |
6.7 |
|
|
Latvian Maritime Academy |
21.0 |
40.0 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
NA |
|
|
|
NA |
14.0 |
|
|
|
23.5 |
NA |
|
|
|
11.9 |
NA |
|
|
|
0.0 |
NA |
|
|
|
30 |
NA |
|
|
|
0.0 |
1.6 |
|
|
|
14.9 |
8.0 |
|
|
|
17.0 |
NA |
|
|
|
16.2 |
NA |
|
|
|
54.5 |
NA |
|
Private |
|
13.0 |
NA |
|
|
Riga Institute of Aeronautics |
85.0 |
84.0 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
NA |
|
|
|
91.0 |
83.7 |
|
|
RIMPAK Livonija |
49.0 |
NA |
|
|
|
25.0 |
NA |
Data source: Pabriks A. Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination
in
Conclusions
1. To support research and education projects to promote knowledge of
cultures, history, languages and religions of Latvia’s minorities among the
minority population itself and among the majority; ensure that minorities have
equal opportunities and are adequately participating in these programs.
2. To develop a system of teachers training specific for minority
schools, addressing both the need for subject matter teachers and Latvian
language teachers in minority schools.
3. To ensure adequate minority representation within the staff of
state-funded universities through hiring and promotion policies; ensure that
school graduation exams and university entry exams allow for minority
representatives to use their mother tongue as a medium; envision special
programmes, including grant schemes, for minority groups (particularly Roma)
with significantly lower average education levels and inadequate representation
within the student body.
Article 13
1.Within the framework of their education systems, the Parties shall recognise
that persons belonging to a national minority have the right to set up and to
manage their own private educational and training establishments.
2.The exercise of this right shall not entail any financial obligation for
the Parties.
Paragraph 1
Legal
The right to establish and manage private education and training
establishments is recognised in Latvian legislation: the Education Law (1998)
entitles private physical and legal persons to found private schools (Section
23 para. 3). The Law also determines that education in languages other than
Latvian can be conducted in private education establishments (Section 10 para.
2).
Implementation / factual
A number of private (also minority) education and training
establishments have been set up since 1991.
Table:
Number of private schools and pupils in private schools, 2001/2002 academic
year (including elementary, basic and secondary schools)
|
|
Language of instruction: |
|
||||||
|
|
Latvian |
Russian |
Bilingual |
Total |
||||
|
Location |
Schools |
Pupils |
Schools |
Pupils |
Schools |
Pupils |
Schools |
Pupils |
|
Cesis r.d.* |
2 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
33 |
|
|
1 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
|
Madona r.d. |
1 |
59 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
59 |
|
Ogre r.d. |
1 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
65 |
|
Preili r.d. |
1 |
38 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
38 |
|
|
2 |
217 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
217 |
|
Talsi r.d. |
2 |
168 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
168 |
|
Jelgava |
1 |
89 |
1 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
2 |
19 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
44 |
|
Ventspils |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
35 |
1 |
35 |
|
|
8 |
714 |
17 |
1035 |
3 |
232 |
28 |
1981 |
|
Total |
21 |
1412 |
19 |
1079 |
4 |
267 |
44 |
2758 |
*r.d. = rural district
Paragraph 2
Legal
The Education Law (1998) allows for public funding to be provided to
private schools. However, the same law prescribes discrimination against
private minority schools: Section 59 para. 2 stipulates that the “State and
municipalities may participate in financing of private education institutions
if these institutions implement state accredited education programs in the
state language.” Thus, private schools where minority language is used as a
medium of instruction are banned from receiving public funding.
Although Article 13(2) of the FCNM explicitly relieves
Implementation / factual
No private minority school has yet publicly challenged this provision in
the court.
Conclusions
The right to establish and to manage private educational institutions is
recognised in
1. To abolish discriminatory provision of Section 59 para. 2 of the Education Law.
2. To ensure that private schools with instruction in minority languages
can apply for and receive adequate share of public funding granted to private
schools in general.
Article 14
1.The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to learn his or her minority language.
2.In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national
minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient
demand, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within
the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those
minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority language
or for receiving instruction in this language.
3.Paragraph 2 of this article shall be implemented
without prejudice to the learning of the official language or the teaching in
this language.
Paragraph 1
Legal
The legislation, in principle, recognises the right of persons belonging
to minorities to learn his or her minority language: Article 114 of the
Constitution stipulates that “persons belonging to ethnic minorities have the
right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural
identity.”
Paragraph 2
Legal
Recent changes to
During the independence movement in the late 80s and the early 90s, as
well as in the early years of independence Latvia has developed a system of
state-funded minority language education: most of the state-funded schools with
Russian language of instruction were preserved, while support has been given to
the creation of schools or classes for seven other minorities (e.g. Polish,
Ukrainian, Estonian, Jewish, Roma, Lithuanian, Belarussian).
However, according to the Education Law (1998), after 2004 all public
secondary and vocational education must be in the state language only
(Paragraph 9, sub-paragraph 3 of Transitional Provisions of the Education Law),
while existing primary minority schools have to be transformed into bilingual
schools. In practice this means that already existing state-financed minority
language secondary and vocational schools have to switch to instruction in
Latvian only.
The Education Law permits, but does not guarantee, education in minority
languages in two instances - in private schools (currently attended by less
than 1% of students) and in state and municipal education establishments where
‘minority education programmes’ are being implemented (Section 9 para. 2 of the
Education Law). The latter programmes are stipulated but not defined in the
law. The Ministry of Education is authorised to determine the subjects within
minority education programmes to be taught in the state language (Section 9
para. 2 and Section 41 para. 3 of the Education Law). A separate General
Education Law (1999) allows for general secondary education programmes to be
combined with “minority education programmes, including teaching minority
languages and subjects related to the identity of the minority and the
integration of the society of Latvia” (Section 42 para. 2). However, this
provision leaves the matter of education in minority languages at the discretion
of officials of the Ministry of Education.
The Minister for Education Karlis Greiskalns pointed out in his letter
to one of the parliamentary factions that the collision between the Education
Law and General Education Law exists. He mentioned that the Education Law
contains more general norms, but the General Education Law contains less
general norms. According to the collision norm (“one may apply a more general
norm only in cases not covered by an incompatible less general norm”) the
General Education Law is to be applied in the case. However, the Minister does
not intend to solve the collision by submitting amendments to the Education
Law, as the collision norm can be used.
FCNM Explanatory Report makes it explicitly clear that teaching of minority
language should not be seen as a substitute for teaching in that language,
therefore “teaching minority languages” (permitted by the Law on General
Education) in secondary schools should not prevent the state from ensuring
opportunity to study in minority languages in secondary schools 31.
However, “[o]pportunities for being taught the minority language or for
receiving instruction in this language” envisioned in the Convention are
conditioned to (1) “sufficient demand” from persons belonging to minorities as
well as to (2) “as far as possible and within the framework of their [States
Parties] education systems”. It can be argued that both requirements are
fulfilled in
It needs to be especially emphasised, that the envisioned liquidation of
state-supported minority education is also questionable from the legal point of
view. Although
The Education Law (1998) requires local governments to assume
responsibility for pre-school, primary and secondary education, but does not
require local governments to establish and/or maintain minority schools/classes
if minority parents so request. Moreover, about a half of persons belonging to
minorities do not have voting rights in local elections, and therefore do not
have any influence over decisions taken by local governments, including the
decisions concerning education of minority children.
The Education Law stipulates that orphans shall receive education in the
state language (Section 56 para. 2). In practice this means that orphaned
children whose education began in a different language must also be transferred
to a Latvian-language school, regardless of grade or age.
Implementation / factual
The envisioned elimination of state-funded minority secondary and
vocational education and the transformation of primary schools into bilingual
schools has been put forward ostensibly in order to “level the playing field”
for minority pupils. However, this move is continuously opposed by
representatives of minority organisations as well as criticised by minority
parents for putting minority children at an educational disadvantage 33.
According to survey data “Our Values”, 75% of minority parents wish their
children to receive education in their mother tongue 34.
The latest research on the problem revealed that while many support the
envisioned move, most of the minority schools’ teachers, pupils and their
parents oppose the elimination of minority secondary education 35.
Language is an important identity factor for the Russian linguistic
minority youth: according to a research, 77% of respondents consider language
as the basis for identity, ahead of ethnic origin (54%) 36 .
It is feared elimination of Russian minority education will seriously endanger
minority’s identity 37.
Traditionally, Latvian-language stream of education 38emphasises
Latvian folk culture, traditions and history. Inclusion of “minority cultural
component” into Latvian-language curricula is unlikely to offset this tendency.
The research data shows that while all respondents agree the greatest benefit
of the envisioned move will be that students will learn Latvian, most of
minority schools’ principals, teachers and pupils’ parents believe the
elimination of minority education will have negative effect on minority pupils’
ability to learn the content of certain subject matter and their psychological
feelings 39.
Principals and teachers also stated that proficiency in native language will
suffer as a result 40.
The research data 41
also points out at serious practical failures by the Ministry of Education and
Science in preparing for the envisioned liquidation of minority secondary
education, i.e. - in preparation of teachers, study manuals, teaching
techniques etc. With just two years left before the deadline of 2004
approaches, only 16% of minority schools are “fairly well prepared” to switch
from minority language to Latvian 42.
Estimated level of readiness of minority schools’ pupils is rather low: only
10% of the schools’ principals, 6% of teachers, 15% of pupils and 25% of their
parents stated that the pupils are “definitely will be able to” study in
Latvian in secondary school 43.
Partly because of demographic changes (emigration, a falling birth rate)
and parental choices (some minority parents send their children to Latvian language
schools), the Latvian authorities have closed a number of Russian-language
schools. In several cases, these decisions were made despite the apparent
viability of these schools - i.e. sufficient number of students and qualified
staff. The closure of two Russian language schools in
In 2002, 8 children were denied an opportunity to study in Russian in
Kalnciems school. Their parents timely applied for a
1st year class with the Russian language of instruction to be opened. In the
meantime, parents of other 11 children applied for a 1st year class with the
Latvian language of instruction to be opened. According to the Order No.313 of
the Ministry of Education and Science, the minimum number of pupils in a class
should be 12, although in special circumstances and upon a written request of a
school’s authorities a class with a lesser number of pupils can be opened.
Responding to this provision, parents of the 8 children collected 300
signatures in support of their demand. The school’s authorities and the local
government ignored the demand of the minority parents and opened only a 1st
year class with the Latvian language of instruction 44.
The controversy and protests evoked by such actions suggest the need to
set firm standards requiring local governments to open/maintain minority
schools/classes if there is sufficient minority demand.
Factual
Table: Number of schools and pupils by language of instruction
(Including daytime and evening (shift) schools)
|
Academic year |
Schools by language of instruction |
Total No of schools |
Pupils by language of instruction** |
Total No of pupils** |
% study in Latvian |
|||||
|
Latvian |
Russian |
Mixed* |
Other |
Latvian |
Russian |
Other |
||||
|
1991/1992 |
585 |
219 |
178 |
4 |
986 |
183266 |
154736 |
208 |
338210 |
54.19 |
|
1992/1993 |
623 |
223 |
179 |
4 |
1029 |
181875 |
146457 |
328 |
328660 |
55.34 |
|
1993/1994 |
652 |
216 |
175 |
5 |
2015 |
191517 |
143904 |
461 |
335882 |
57.02 |
|
1994/1995 |
679 |
209 |
176 |
7 |
1071 |
199146 |
138002 |
727 |
337875 |
58.94 |
|
1995/1996 |
699 |
207 |
182 |
6 |
1094 |
209947 |
136740 |
854 |
347541 |
60.41 |
|
1996/1997 |
719 |
205 |
182 |
6 |
1112 |
219684 |
133882 |
908 |
354474 |
61.97 |
|
1997/1998 |
728 |
200 |
176 |
6 |
1110 |
228059 |
130912 |
1043 |
360014 |
63.35 |
|
1998/1999 |
738 |
196 |
171 |
6 |
1111 |
234476 |
126073 |
1173 |
361722 |
64.87 |
|
1999/2000 |
737 |
190 |
160 |
7 |
1095 |
239163 |
120925 |
1344 |
361432 |
66.17 |
|
2000/2001 |
734 |
179 |
154 |
7 |
1074 |
242475 |
116009 |
1334 |
359818 |
67.39 |
*Mixed schools include two separate streams of education: Latvian and
Russian.
**Data on pupils in evening (shift) schools in 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 were not
included.
Table: Pupils in schools with language of instruction other than Latvian
or Russian, 2001/2002 academic year*
|
|
|
|
Jekabpils r.d.** |
Kraslava r.d. |
Total: |
|
Polish |
371 |
430 |
97 |
80 |
978 |
|
Ukranian |
306 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
306 |
|
Belorussian |
68 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
68 |
|
Total |
745 |
430 |
97 |
80 |
1352 |
*According to the Ministry of Education and Science, schools and classes
of other minorities (Estonian, Jewish, Lithuanian, Roma) use predominantly
Latvian or Russian as a language of instruction. Accordingly, data on pupils of
such schools and classes is included into data on schools and classes with
Latvian or Russian language of instruction.
**r.d. = rural district
Paragraph 3
Legal
The right to receive education in the state language is guaranteed by
the State Language Law (Section 14) and the Education Law (Section 9 para.1).
Learning the state language and taking examinations of the state language is
mandatory for anyone seeking to acquire primary or secondary education (Section
9, para.3 of the Education Law), while examinations for professional qualification,
research papers necessary for qualifying for a degree (BA, MA and PhD) are to
be in Latvian (Section 9 para. 4, 5 of the Education Law).
Conclusions
Taking into account a real situation in
1. To abolish the requirement for state and municipal secondary and
vocational schools to switch to teaching in the state language only (Paragraph
9, sub-paragraph 3 of Transitional Provisions of the Education Law).
2. To amend the Education Law so that secondary and vocational education
in minority languages is guaranteed, if there is a demand for such education.
3. To determine in the Education Law firm criteria that would mandate
the state and municipal authorities to establish and/or maintain schools and/or
classes if parents representing a certain minimum number of potential pupils
request so. Such criteria and their implementation should not discriminate
against requests for schools and classes with minority languages of
instruction.
4. To ensure minorities’ participation in the process of decision-making
and implementation concerning issues of minority education.
Article 15
The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective
participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social
and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.
Legal
Latvian legislation does not provide instruments ensuring minorities’
effective participation in cultural, social and economic life and in public
affairs. In the meantime, Latvian legislation impedes minorities’ participation
by reserving certain political and social-economic rights to citizens only (for
further details concerning citizenship legislation and differences between the
rights of citizens and non-citizens, please, refer to information provided
under Article 4). Certain provisions of Latvian language legislation also
impede minorities’ participation by banning the usage of minority languages in
communication between individuals and the state/municipal institutions,
imposing language proficiency requirements in public and private employment and
restricting the usage of minority languages in TV and radio broadcasts (refer
to information provided under Articles 9 and 10).
Implementation
The main governmental initiative, aimed at building inclusive society is
the Society Integration Programme. The programme covers a broad range of
issues, including dialogue between an individual and the State, encouragement
of naturalisation, development of the NGO sector and NGO involvement in
decision-making, assistance to ethnic Latvians willing to repatriate and to
ethnic minorities wishing to emigrate, measures to promote employment, reduce
poverty, facilitate regional integration, transition to bilingual education for
minorities, measures to strengthen Latvian language and communication,
development of culture and intercultural dialogue, improvement of information
sphere. However, the programme does include minority rights and
anti-discrimination issues and does address the problem of minorities’
participation in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs,
including those affecting them.
Factual
Social and economic life
Generally, minorities are actively participating in the social economic
life and are well represented in the private sector of economy. However, a
recent study on ethnic representation in
In the meantime, minorities in
Official unemployment data suggests that ethnic Latvians are slightly
less and minorities slightly more affected by unemployment. For example, in
2000 ethnic Latvians constituted 57.7% within the total population and 49.8%
within the body of unemployed registered with the State Employment Service,
while ethnic Russians - 29.6 and 35.9% accordingly, ethnic Belarussians - 4.1
and 5.1%, ethnic Ukraininas - 2.7 and 2.9%, ethnic Poles - 2.5 and 3%.
However, the real picture might differ significantly, because the
official figures represent only those individuals, who approached the State
Employment Service and have been officially registered as unemployed. Those
de-facto unemployed, who either failed to approach the Service, or were denied
the registration, do not appear in the official figures. In 1997 the knowledge
of Latvian was a necessary condition for a jobless person to be officially
registered as unemployed. Such measure not only distorted official unemployment
figures of the time, but probably also left psychological effect on some
minority unemployed, discouraging them from approaching the Employment Service
ever since. Besides, the State Employment Service does not provide vocation
training for unemployed in Russian, nor does it ensure Latvian language
training for non-native speakers.
Survey data suggest even higher rates of minority unemployment. In 1996,
26% of surveyed non-Latvians claimed to be unemployed, comparing to 14% of
ethnic Latvians 46 .
A research conducted in 1999 showed unemployment level among ethnic Russians
(18%) and other minorities (17%) to be much higher than among ethnic Latvians
(10 %), while among the working age population, 14% of ethnic Russians, 12% of
other minorities and 7% of ethnic Latvians were unemployed 47 .
Some sources claim unemployment rate among the Roma population in
While citizenship legislation axes off half of
Table: Individuals registered at the State Employment Service
(1995-2000)
|
Ethnic origin |
Thousand of individuals |
Per cent distribution |
Pop. 2000, per cent |
||||||||||
|
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
|
|
Latvians |
39.3 |
44.9 |
45.6 |
55.2 |
53.6 |
46.5 |
47.3 |
49.4 |
53.7 |
49.6 |
49.0 |
49.8 |
57.7 |
|
Russians |
32.2 |
33.3 |
28.4 |
40.7 |
40.2 |
33.5 |
38.6 |
36.7 |
33.5 |
36.5 |
36.7 |
35.9 |
29.6 |
|
Belorussians |
4.5 |
4.8 |
4.1 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
4.7 |
5.3 |
5.4 |
4.8 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
5.1 |
4.1 |
|
Ukranians |
2.3 |
2.5 |
2.1 |
3.4 |
3.3 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
2.7 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
2.9 |
2.7 |
|
Poles |
2.5 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
3.2 |
3.3 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
|
Lithuanians |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
|
Jews |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
|
Others |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
|
Total |
83.2 |
90.8 |
84.9 |
111.4 |
109.5 |
93.3 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Source: Statistical Yearbook of
Public affairs
Lack of citizenship and, to a certain extent - language requirements,
lead to a significant under-representation of minorities in public affairs,
including composition of the Parliament and the municipal (local) councils,
state institutions, courts and municipal (local) administration. For the most
part, opinions of minorities are being ignored in the process of policy making
and implementation, especially in affairs directly affecting minorities. For
example, - a number of schools with Russian language of instruction has been
closed down by local authorities despite the schools’ apparent viability
(sufficient number of pupils and qualified staff). Also,
Parliament
Only 17 MPs out of 100 are ethnic non-Latvians (14 Russians, 1 Pole, 1
Jew, 1 Karelian). 4 MPs do not determine their ethnic
origin in documents. 20 out of 21 MP, who consider themselves as belonging to
national minorities or do not determine their ethnic origin, represent only one
party in the Saeima - the coalition “For Human Rights in United Latvia”, which
explicitly claims to represent the interests of minorities. The
first ethnic Russian cabinet member since 1993 was appointed in 2000, a member
of the nationalist-conservative alliance “For Fatherland and Freedom”.
Ministries
Minorities are significantly underrepresented within state institutions.
According to the New Baltic Barometer of 1996, 31% of employed Latvians work in
the “non-market” sector (i.e. state and municipal bureaucracy, military, state
health sector, education etc.), comparing to only 12% of employed minorities 51. A
research data shows that ethnic Latvians constitute 92% of the staff of
Table: Representation in
|
Ethnic origin |
Per cent distribution |
||
|
|
Population (%) |
Citizenry (%) |
Ministries (%) |
|
Latvians |
58.8 |
76.3 |
92.1 |
|
Russians |
28.8 |
17.4 |
5.7 |
|
Belorussians |
4.0 |
1.3 |
0.3 |
|
Ukranians |
2.5 |
0.4 |
0.17 |
|
Poles |
2.5 |
2.2 |
0.65 |
|
Lithuanians |
1.4 |
0.9 |
0.6 |
|
Jews |
0.4 |
0.9 |
0.6 |
|
Total |
99.8 |
99.7 |
99.85 |
Source: Pabriks A. Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination in
Courts, police and prisons
Minorities are also continuously underrepresented in courts. In early
1994, out of 152 judges in
At the same time, minorities are fairly well represented in the State
Police (34.2% of employees) 57
and even over represented in the Prison Administration (63.1% of employees) 58.
Table: Representation in courts, the State Police and the Prison
Administration, 2001.
|
Ethnic origin |
Per cent distribution |
||||
|
|
Population (%) |
Citizenry (%) |
Surveyed courts (%) |
Police (%) |
Prison Adm. (%) |
|
Latvians |
58.8 |
76.3 |
92.51 |
65.8 |
36.9 |
|
Russians |
28.8 |
17.4 |
5.86 |
25.0 |
45.9 |
|
Belorussians |
4.0 |
1.3 |
0.65 |
3.0 |
5.5 |
|
Ukranians |
2.5 |
0.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
4.2 |
|
Poles |
2.5 |
2.2 |
0.98 |
2.0 |
5.0 |
|
Others |
3.2 |
2.1 |
0 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
|
Total |
99.8 |
99.7 |
100 |
99.7 |
99.6 |
Source: Pabriks A. Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination
in
Municipalities (councils, administration)
Minorities are underrepresented in the local government bodies - both in
self-government councils and in administration. According to a recent research 59,
in rural districts minorities constitute 6% of the councils’ members and 12% of
the administration staff, while in cities minorities constitute 12% of the councils members and 11% of the administration staff. Thus,
the research found that in most cases, minority representation within the
councils and administration is smaller than their share within population, or
does not exist at all 60.
Table: Representation in municipal bodies (surveyed municipalities)
|
Ethnic origin |
Absolute numbers |
Per cent distribution |
||||
|
Residents |
Municipal council members |
Municipal employees |
Residents |
Municipal council members |
Municipal employees |
|
|
Latvians |
935288 |
575 |
1594 |
65.12 |
91.41 |
89.5 |
|
Russians |
336587 |
39 |
122 |
23.44 |
6.2 |
6.85 |
|
Belorussians |
53016 |
1 |
16 |
3.69 |
0.16 |
0.29 |
|
Ukranians |
27106 |
1 |
12 |
1.89 |
0.16 |
0.67 |
|
Poles |
40881 |
10 |
25 |
2.85 |
1.59 |
1.40 |
|
Lithuanians |
22617 |
2 |
7 |
1.57 |
0.32 |
0.39 |
|
Others |
20640 |
1 |
5 |
1.44 |
0.16 |
0.29 |
|
Total |
1436135 |
629 |
1781 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Sources: Data on residents of surveyed municipalities: Statistical
Yearbook of Latvia, 2001.
Conclusions
1. To facilitate further naturalisation of non-citizens, including
adequate funding for preparatory training for applicants, easing naturalisation
requirements for certain groups (i.e. - elderly, disabled persons), abolishing
naturalisation fees for low-income applicants, further
developing information campaigns in the media. Grant automatic citizenship upon
request to those stateless permanent residents, who were born in
2. To grant
3. To implement long-term hiring and
promotion programs aimed at increasing minorities’ representation within the
staff of
4. To provide adequate state funding to meet the need for Latvian
language learning among adult non-native speakers, especially unemployed;
ensure Roma professional training; ensure an opportunity for minority
unemployed to receive professional training also in minority language; allow
for minority languages to be used for communication with public authorities;
abolish language restrictions in TV and radio broadcasts; abolish excessive
language restrictions and requirements in education, private and public
employment.
Article 16
The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of
the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities
and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the
principles enshrined in the present framework Convention. Legal
Implementation / factual
Article 17
1. The Parties undertake not to interfere with the right of persons
belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain free and peaceful
contacts across frontiers with persons lawfully staying in other States, in
particular those with whom they share an ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious
identity, or a common cultural heritage.
2. The Parties undertake not to interfere with the
right of persons belonging to national minorities to participate in the
activities of non-governmental organisations, both at the national and
international levels. Legal
The legislation in force does not prohibit establishing and maintaining
free and peaceful contacts across frontiers.
The Law on Non-Governmental Organizations and their Associations (1992)
does not limit the right of persons belonging to national minorities to
participate in the activities of non-governmental organisations. However, only
citizens of
Implementation/factual
In July 2002 the Society Integration Foundation announced the second
projects’ competition in different fields. There was one relevant program in
the field of ethnic integration - the program for support of repatriation,
migration and co-operation with compatriots abroad (the total funds for the
program was 15,000 Lats (approx. EUR 26,785)).
Article 18
1. The Parties shall endeavour to conclude,
where necessary, bilateral and multilateral agreements with other States, in
particular neighbouring States, in order to ensure the protection of persons
belonging to the national minorities concerned.
2. Where relevant, the Parties shall take measures to encourage transfrontier
co-operation.
Legal
Implementation / factual
PART III
Conclusions and recommendations
Respect to minority rights is declared both in the Constitution of
Latvia (Article 114) and in a number of international instruments, ratified by
The main barrier to successful implementation of the Convention’s
principles are certain provisions of the Language Law and the Education Law, in
particular the prohibition to use minority languages in state and municipal
institutions, as well as the envisaged elimination of the state-supported
secondary and vocational education in minority languages scheduled for
2004-2006.
Principles of some articles of the Framework Convention are already
being implemented in
In particular, we recommend the following changes to be made to Latvian
policies, legislation and its implementation:
1. To ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities without reservations and declarations.
2. To adopt the national Law on the Protection of Minority Rights based
on the provisions of the Framework Convention and recognising stateless
permanent residents as entitled to minority rights granted to citizens; grant a
legal status for minority languages and establish a new state institution
responsible for minority affairs.
3. To review legislative provisions of the Republic of Latvia
(especially ones of the Education Law and State Language Law) in order to
comply with the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities.
4. To establish the right to communicate orally and in writing in
minority languages with the state, municipal and judicial institutions in
municipalities inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities in
substantial numbers.
5. To allow for general public displays provided by public (state and
municipal) bodies and enterprises to be made also in minority languages, ensure
that traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications
intended for the public to be displayed also in minority languages, and set
clear criteria determining minimal sufficient demand for minority language to
be used is such indications.
6. To abolish discriminatory provision of Section 59 para.2 of the
Education Law and to ensure that private schools with instruction in minority
languages can apply for and receive adequate share of public funding granted to
private schools in general.
7. To abolish the requirement for state and municipal secondary and
vocational schools to switch to teaching in the state language only (Paragraph
9, sub-paragraph 3 of Transitional Provisions of the Education Law).
8. To amend the Education Law so that secondary and vocational education
in minority languages is guaranteed, provided there is a demand for such
education; determine in the Education Law firm criteria that would mandate the
state and municipal authorities to establish and/or maintain schools and/or
classes if parents representing a certain minimum number of potential pupils
request so. Such criteria and their implementation should not discriminate
against requests for schools and classes with minority languages of
instruction.
9. To ensure minorities’ participation in the process of decision-making
and implementation concerning issues of minority education.
10. To develop a system of teachers training specific for minority
schools, addressing both the need for subject matter teachers and Latvian
language teachers in minority schools.
11. Through hiring and promotion policies, ensure adequate minority
representation within the staff of state-funded universities; ensure that
school graduation exams and university entry exams allow for minority
representatives to use their mother tongue as a medium; envision special
programmes, including grant schemes, for minority groups (particularly Roma)
with significantly lower average education levels and inadequate representation
within the student body.
12. To abolish provisions concerning mandatory ethnicity record from all
acts of legislation and to effectively provide an opportunity to be treated or
not to be treated as a person belonging to national minority for any citizen
and non-citizen of Latvia on the basis of his/her ethnic identity.
13. To recognise individual’s right to officially use his or her
personal name and surname in the spelling form he or she prefers and envision a
streamlined procedure for restoration of desired spelling of individual’s
personal name and surname.
14. To adopt a national Anti-Discrimination Law, which
would prohibit, inter alia, discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin,
language and identity and establish a state institution responsible for
anti-discrimination activities.
15. In order to comply with anti-discrimination law, and taking into
account the principle of proportionality to review acts of legislation, which
set forth citizenship and/or state language proficiency requirements in public
and private spheres.
16. To establish criminal liability for both intentional and
unintentional acts of discrimination, hostility and violence based on the
victim’s ethnic origin, culture, language or religion.
17. To establish civil liability for any act of discrimination,
hostility and violence based on the victim’s ethnic origin, culture, language
or religion.
18. To introduce a reversed burden of proof in all civil and
administrative cases concerning alleged discrimination based on the victim’s
ethnic origin, culture, language or religion.
19. To grant the state institution responsible for anti-discrimination
activities the authority to represent the victim’s interests in any case
concerning discrimination.
20. To provide adequate state funding to meet the need for Latvian
language learning among adult non-native speakers, especially unemployed;
ensure Roma professional training; ensure an opportunity for minority
unemployed to receive professional training also in minority language.
21. To implement long-term hiring and
promotion programs aimed at increasing minorities’ representation within the
staff of
22. To facilitate further naturalisation of non-citizens, including
adequate funding for preparatory training for applicants, easing naturalisation
requirements for certain groups (i.e. - elderly, disabled persons), abolishing
naturalisation fees for low-income applicants, further
developing information campaigns in the media. Grant automatic citizenship upon
request to those permanent residents without any citizenship, who were born in
23. To grant
24. To cancel language restrictions for broadcasting of private radio
and TV channels and to review composition and principles of election of the
National Council on Radio and Television in order to promote representation of
national minorities in the Council; instead of a limit not to be exceeded for
programmes in languages other than Latvian at Latvian Radio and Latvian
Television, to consider 20% of time at the second distribution network as a
share to be compulsorily allocated to such programmes.
25. To review the Society Integration Programme in order to make the
principle of non-discrimination and respect to minority rights cornerstones of
the Programme, so that to guarantee the integration of the society on the basis
of common values and respect to minority rights, and take appropriate measures
in order to promote tolerance in the society, especially in education and
within the framework of the Programme.
26. To establish transparent and effective mechanism of allocation of
the state financial support for national minorities within the framework of the
state institution responsible for minority affairs and increase direct
financial support from the state budget for facilitating minorities’ activities
aimed at promotion of knowledge about and preservation of their culture,
religion, language and education among minorities and among the majority, and
ensure that minorities have equal opportunities and are adequately
participating in such programs.
27. To guarantee the opportunity to celebrate religious holidays for any
believer, providing a certain number of days off per year, which are to be paid
for by employer.
|
Additional information |
|
|
Resolution On The Renewal of the Rights
of Citizens of the Republic of Latvia and Fundamental Principles of
Naturalisation, adopted on October 15, 1991. The Resolution was based on the
strictest reading of the concept of legal continuity whereby only citizens of
the pre-WWII independent |
|
|
Balodis A. Latvijas un latviesu tautas
vesture, “Kabata” gramatu apgads, |
|
|
Statistical Yearbook of |
|
|
Minority issues in |
|
|
Feldhune G., Mits M. Implementing
European anti-discrimination law: |
|
|
For the full list of differences between
the rights of citizens and non-citizens, please refer to . For further comments to the list,
please refer to . |
|
|
2001 CERD report on |
|
|
Feldhune G., Mits M.
Implementing European anti-discrimination law: |
|
|
Feldhune G., Mits M.
Implementing European anti-discrimination law: |
|
|
Martisune S.
Electronic media and integration of society in |
|
|
Human Rights in |
|
|
Minority issues in |
|
|
Minority issues in |
|
|
‘What is National
Programme for Latvian Language Training Doing?’” NPLLT info Nr.2/98-99 |
|
|
Izglitiba un Kultura
(Education and Culture), |
|
|
Pabriks A.
Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination in |
|
|
Buhvalov V.A., Pliner
J.G. Problems and perspectives of integration into |
|
|
Baltic Institute of
Social Sciences, “Analysis of the implementation of bilingual education”. |
|
|
Volkovs V.
Krievvalodigas jaunatnes dzimtas valodas vieta integracijas procesa Latvija
(The Place of the Native Language of the Russian-speaking Youth in the
Integration Process in |
|
|
Concerns expressed at
the conferences of parents of minority school’s pupils. |
|
|
Schools and classes
where Latvian language is used as a medium of instruction. |
|
|
Baltic Institute of
Social Sciences, “Analysis of the implementation of bilingual education”. |
|
|
Baltic Institute of
Social Sciences, “Analysis of the implementation of bilingual education”. |
|
|
Newspaper Chas, |
|
|
Pabriks A.
Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination in |
|
|
Rose Richard, New
Baltic Barometer III: A Survey Study, |
|
|
Aasland Aadne,
Ethnicity and Poverty in |
|
|
Minority issues in |
|
|
Baltic Social Sciences
Institute, Latvian Naturalisation Board, Cela uz pilsonisku sabiedribu,
Latvijas iedzivotaju aptauja 2000. gada novembris (“On the Road to a Civil
Society, Opinion poll of |
|
|
Baltic Institute of
Social Sciences, “Analysis of the implementation of bilingual education”. |
|
|
R. Rose, New Baltic
Barometer III: A Survey Study, |
|
|
“Latvijas Vestnesis”
(“The Latvian Herald”), |
|