Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the
RF Law On Mass Media stipulate the right of an
editorial office to request information on the
activity of state bodies and relevant officials
for timely provision of the information requested.
Moreover, the RF Law on State Secrets and
Law On Information, Its Dissemination and Protection
designate types of information which may not
be classified and, consequently, kept from the
public. The following information is subject
to disclosure:
- on extraordinary situations and disasters
threatening the health and safety of citizens,
including information on the consequences
thereof, on calamities, their official forecasts
and consequences;
- on the current state of the environment,
public health, sanitation, demographics, education,
culture, agriculture and crime rate;
- on the privileges, compensations and preferences
provided by the state for citizens, officials,
enterprises, establishments and organizations;
- on the violation of the rights and freedoms
of a person or a citizen;
- on the extent of the gold and foreign exchange
reserves of the Russian Federation;
- on the health of high ranking officials
of the Russian Federation;
- on illegitimate actions by state bodies
and their officials
"Officials who classify such information or file
it together with state secrets for the purpose
of hiding it, shall be subject to criminal, administrative
and disciplinary liability depending on the material
and moral damage caused to society, the state
and citizens." (RF Law on State Secrets, section
III "On Classifying Information and Information
Media as Secret," Article 7).
The following information shall not be deemed
classified:
- legislative and other legal documents establishing
the legal status of state and local authorities,
governmental and non- governmental organizations
as well as citizens` rights and the freedoms
of citizens including the procedure for exercising
them;
- documents containing information on the
activity of state and local self-governing
bodies, on using budget funds as well as funds
from other state and local resources, on the
state of the economy and the interests of
the population with the exception of the information
regarded as a state secret;
- documents stored on the unrestricted shelves
of libraries and archives namely: in the information
systems of state and local bodies, non-governmental
and public organizations representing public
interests or necessary for exercising the
rights, freedoms and responsibilities of citizens
(Law On Information,Its Dissemination and
Protection, article 10 "On Information Resources
aranged by Access Categories," Provision 3);
This is the legal foundation upon which the project
was based using the fourth research method - test
requests for information.
A number of regional and central mass media
carried out a two-stage program sending requests
for information to high ranking officials in
87 out of 89 entities of the Russian Federation
(excluding the Republic of Chechnya (both stages
missing) and the Republic of Ingushetia (both
stages missing)). The editorial offices of Novaya
Gazeta (7 requests), Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(3 requests) and Rossiskaya Gazeta (1
request) newspapers and Spros reference
guide (1 request), as well as local print and
electronic media took part in the campaign.
In total, 1871 requests were issued with 832
responses received, of which only 420 were comprehensive
and timely as required by the Law On Mass Media.
Designed by the project's authors as deliberate
tests, the requests in essence represented serious
journalistic investigations into issues of great
public interest. The requests were deliberately
designed so as to avoid subject matter which
might be a state secret or any other secret
protected by law. Unfortunately, in only a few
regions did the local authorities, be they administrative
and legislative assemblies, prosecutors' offices
and courts, ministries of internal affairs (MVDs)
and organs of justice, court departments, public
health and educational establishments, etc.,
respond to the requests of editorial offices
in a timely manner.
After both stages of requests for information
HAD BEEN forwarded by the press to top officials
of the Republic of Karelia, the Republic of
Komi, the Republic of Udmurtia, as well as to
high ranking officials of Kurgan Region, Yaroslavl
Region, Tula Region, Kamchatka Region, Orel
Region, Samara Region, Perm Region, Penza Region,
Kirov Region, Ivanovo Region and Vologda Region,
local authorities of these regions provided
the editorial offices with the information requested
closely following the procedure established
by law: i.e. the majority of officials answered
the requests in accordance with the Law On Mass
Media.
State bodies of 44 territorial entities proved
more inclined to respond rather than not to
press requests. These included the Republic
of Tatarstan, the Republic of Buryatia, the
Republic of Mordovia, the Republic of Tuva and
the Republic of Bashkortostan; Moscow Region,
Chita Region, Novgorod Region, Murmansk Region,
Kaluga Region, Irkutsk Region, Ryazan Region,
Kemerovo Region, Vladimir Region, Amur Region,
Leningrad Region, Sakhalin Region, Omsk Region,
Smolensk Region, Nizhny-Novgorod Region, Kaliningrad
Region, Volgograd Region, Astrakhan Region,
Tyumen Region, Tomsk Region, Tver Region, Sverdlovsk
Region, Rostov Region, Pskov Region, Orenburg
Region, Kursk Region, Ulyanovsk Region, Tambov
Region as well as Jewish Autonomous Region,
Komi-Permyak Autonomous District, Evenki Autonomous
District, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District,
Ust-Orda Autonomous District, Agin-Buryat Autonomous
District, Koryak Autonomous District; Krasnodar
Territory, Altai Territory and Primorsk Territory
as well as in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
In 29 regions, state bodies have no tradition
of answering press requests for information
and actually deny editorial offices information
of public concern. The true leader in irresponsibility
proved to be the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
where 15 officials out of 18 ignored the request.
It was followed by a narrow margin by the Adygei
Republic, the Republic of Altai, the Republic
of Kalmykia, the Republic of Mari-El, the Republic
of Dagestan, the Republic of North Osetia-Alania,
the Republic of Chuvashia, the Republic of Khakasia,
the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria and the Karachaevo-Cherkess
Republic; Krasnoyarsk Territory, Stavropol Territory
and Khabarovsk Territory; Arkhangelsk Region,
Belgorod Region, Bryansk Region, Voronezh Region,
Kostroma Region, Lipetsk Region, Magadan Region,
Novosibirsk Region, Saratov Region and Chelyabinsk
Region; Agin-Buryat Autonomous District, Nenets
Autonomous District, Taimyr Autonomous District,
Chukot Autonomous District and Khanty-Mansisk
Autonomous District. For the above regions,
receiving a response was rather the exception
to the rule, with as many as three quarters
of the officials ignoring the requests.
The research shows that there are a number
of subjects which are kept completely secret
from the public by representatives of local
authorities.
The most closely guarded of these secrets
is the state of affairs in temporary holding
cells. Requests on this subject matter included
the following questions:
- the total number of prisoners in temporary
holding cells at internal affairs departments
(police stations);
- the total area of the temporary holding
cells designed for holding suspects;
- the average amount of time suspects are
held in these cells.
During the first stage (June, 1999, Novaya Gazeta)
the inquiry on temporary holding cells was sent
out to the heads of the Ministries and Departments
of Internal Affairs of 88 regions. Only 16 requests
were answered by local authorities: that is 18%
of the total number of requests sent.
Out of the answers received, only four gave
part of the requested information, with six
answers actually stating that there are no temporary
holding cells in the District (implying that
six regions have no temporary holding cells
at all). 72 regions (82%) refused to provide
information on the inquiry. Officials explained
their denial by saying that the information:
- is strictly for internal use and classified
"of limited access" in accordance with order
No. 825 FIUO (For Internal Use Only) by the
Ministry for Internal Affairs dated 15.12.97
(this answer was received from R.H. Kubov,
Minister of Internal Affairs of the Adygei
Republic; A.D. Guliakov, the Head of Internal
Affairs Department of the Penza Region);
- is secret and referred to in documents
as "for internal use only" (V.A Fesunov, the
Head of the Internal Affairs Department of
Bryansk Region);
- the information requested is classified
as official information of limited access
and not subject to dissemination by mass media
(R.U. Divayev, Minister of Internal Affairs
of the Republic of Bashkortostan; A.V. Berdnikov,
Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic
of Altai; A.M. Rozuvan, Head of the Internal
Affairs Department of Kirov Region);
- this information is to be provided only
by agreement with the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of the Russian Federation (MVD RF)
(E.Y. Balkan, Minister of Internal Affairs
of the Republic of Kalmykia; H.A. Shogenov,
Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic
of Kabardino-Balkaria).
As has already been mentioned, the information
requested did not constitute a state secret, and
is not subject to classification.
The responses exposed a very worrying situation:
in some regions the number of those kept in
temporary holding cells significantly exceeded
established standards. This is probably the
reason why 72 out of 88 regions requested refused
to provide information on the state of affairs
in temporary holding cells.
On the other hand, while analyzing the extent
of the secrecy of this information, one factor
should be taken into consideration: the requests
were forwarded to the internal affairs departments
of the regions after the temporary holding cells,
which used to report to internal affairs bodies,
had been moved to the jurisdiction of the RF
Ministry of Justice in accordance with Presidential
Decree No. 904 dated 28.07.98 On Moving Correctional
Institutions of RF MIA to the jurisdiction of
the RF Ministry of Justice. With reference to
the decree, the following heads of internal
affairs departments refused to answer the request:
I.B. Ulash, Minister for Internal Affairs of
the Republic of Karelia; I.I. Kalashnikov, Minister
for Internal Affairs of the Republic of Buryatia;
V.V. Shevchenko, Minister for Internal Affairs
of the Karachaevo-Cherkess Republic; V.A.Valkov,
Head of the internal affairs department of Altai
Territory; A.G. Sarpunov., the Head of the State
Department of the Internal Affairs of Krasnodar
Territory; A.T. Volkodav, the Head of the Internal
Affairs Department of Astrakhan Region; A.V.
Vinogradov, Head of the State Internal Affairs
Department of Kemerovo Region; A.N. Soinov,
Head of the Internal Affairs Department of Novosibirsk
Region; V.Y. Kamertsel, Head of the Internal
Affairs Department of Omsk Region; I.P. Savchenko,
Head of the Internal Affairs Department of Orlovskaia
Region; and V.G. Sikerin, Head of the State
Internal Affairs Department of Perm Region.
The above factor, however, does not excuse the
situation, since at the time of the inquiry
the heads of the internal affairs departments
had sufficient information to answer the request.
Only six answers contained detailed information
on the request, making the overall proportion
of answers providing the required information
only 7%.
During the second stage (February, 2000, Nezavisimaya
Gazeta) the inquiry on temporary holding cells
touched again upon information of top secret
status. This time the request, dealing with
the same questions, was addressed to the heads
of departments of the RF Ministries of Justice.
Only 12 answers containing the information
requested were received from local authorities
(14 % of the total number of requests sent).
Out of the answers received, only five (6%)
gave part of the required information, either
saying nothing about the number of persons kept
in the cells or referring the information to
the jurisdiction of another institution (Ministry
of Internal Affairs), with four answers (5%)
giving no explanation at all for the absence
of temporary holding cells in the regions.
74 Districts (86%) refused to provide information
on the subject matter.
Officials refused to provide information saying
that:
- this kind of information can be provided
only by the appropriate higher bodies upon
direct requests to them (V.M. Uriavin, Head
of News and Information Department of the
Republic of Komi);
- this information is restricted and classified
as For-Internal-Use-Only in accordance with
decree No. 825 FIUO dated 12.15.97 by the
RF Ministry of Internal Affairs requiring
that all requests for information should be
addressed to the State Department of News
and Information under the Ministry of Justice
of Russia (I.P. Philipenko, Head of News and
Information Department under the RF Ministry
of Justice of Magadan Region; A.A. Salnikov,
MVD colonel of Tomsk Region;
- information of this type can be provided
only by submitting the written consent of
the State Department of News and Information
under the Ministry of Justice of Russia (V.P.Shliakhov,
MVD colonel, Head of Vladimir Region Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice; A.P Kirpichenko, MVD colonel,
the Head of Pskov Region Department of News
and Information under the RF Ministry of Justice);
- the information requested comes under the
jurisdiction of the Department of News and
Information of the RF Ministry of Justice
(D.H. Shakhirov, First Deputy Chief of the
Republic of Bashkortostan Department of News
and Information under the RF Ministry of Justice;
M. Krivenko, Head of Stavropol Territory Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice; A.A. Dovidenko, Head of Penza
Region Department of News and Information
under the RF Ministry of Justice; Gasukov
I.I, a class 3d state justice assistant, Head
of Yaroslavl Region Department of News and
Information under the RF Ministry of Justice;
A.N. Safonov, Head of the Republic of Karelia
Department of News and Information under the
RF Ministry of Justice; A.I. Volokh, MVD major
general, Head of the Moscow Region Department
of News and Information; A.P. Leez, MVD major
general, Head of Rostov Region Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice; V.F. Sazonov, Head of Samara Region
Department of News and Information under the
RF Ministry of Justice);
- information on the confinement and movement
of persons detained in temporary holding cells
is official information of a restricted nature
which may be obtained only from the Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice (V.S. Gazaev, MVD colonel, executive
chief of the North Osetia-Alania Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice; U.S. Belkov, Head of Vologda Region
Department of News and Information under the
RF Ministry of Justice; B. Gronik, MVD lieutenant
general, chief of the Irkutsk Region Department
of News and Information under the RF Ministry
of Justice; A.B. Kravchenko, MVD colonel,
executive chief of the North Osetia-Alania
Department of News and Information under the
RF Ministry of Justice; N.A. Rulev, executive
chief of the St. Petersburg and Leningrad
Region Department of News and Information
under the RF Ministry of Justice);
- temporary holding cells designed to hold
persons suspected or accused of crimes, do
not fall within the authority of the territorial
bodies of the Ministry of Justice (U.M. Gerasimov,
MVD colonel, Head of the Department of News
and Information under the RF Ministry of Justice;
M.V. Khashkin, deputy chief of the Justice
Department of the Astrakhan Region Administration;
U.P. Kobertsky, Head of the Chita Region Department
of Justice; A.B. Bikov, Head of the Department
of Justice of the Yamalo Nenet Autonomous
District);
- "in accordance with the provision of the
State Department of News and Information of
the RF Ministry of Justice, all the subdivisions
of the criminal-executive system are structural
subdivisions of that department. Thus, all
questions concerning the daily activity thereof
shall be answered through the State Department
of News and Information of the RF Ministry
of Justice" (V.F. Zlodeev, Head of the Kurgan
Region Department of News and Information
of the RF Ministry of Justice);
- "the information requested is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Kursk Region Department
of News and Information of the RF Ministry
of Justice" (A. Massillon, Head of Justice
Department of the Kursk Region Administration).
The inquiries were forwarded to regional departments
of the RF Ministry of Justice; in 36 regions
they were re-addressed "by jurisdiction" to
departments of correction, with 23 requests
left unanswered.
Only three answers contained full information
(3% of the total number of requests sent). Thus,
a comparative analysis of the results obtained
from the two stages of inquiry allows us to
conclude that the topic of temporary holding
cells remains securely withheld from society.
Financial issues rank second among the most
secret topics, principally with the requests
about the income of heads of local administrations
(first stage June, 1999, Novaya Gazeta).
According to the procedure for Providing Information
on the Income and Property of Russian Federation
Officials established in RF Presidential Decree
No. 484 dated May 15, 1997, by the RF President,
the editorial office of Novaya Gazeta sent requests
to the heads of local administrations for information
on their cumulative yearly income and the number
of days spent on business trips outside their
regions in 1998.
74 out of 88 requests (84%) were never answered.
Only 14 responses (16%) were received from the
heads of administrations, with only 10 of those
(11% of the total number of requests) providing
detailed information. Responses that met all
the requirements of the Law On Mass Media were
received from the Republic of Ingushetia, the
Republic of Tuva, as well as from the Kostroma
Region, Murmansk Region, Novgorod Region and
Novosibirsk Region. Untimely responses to the
requests were received from the heads of administrations
of Vologda Region, Tula Region, the Komi-Permyak
Autonomous District and Moscow. The request
for financial information touched upon a number
of issues:
- local budgets and particular items thereof
(first and second stages);
- privileges, compensations and benefits
provided by state bodies.
On the local budget and
its individual articles
(Phase II, February 2000,
Nezavisimaya Gazeta)
In total, 174 inquiries were circulated on the
subject of regional budgets. In the 87 inquiries,
which were addressed to the heads of administrations,
the following information was requested:
- on the current debt of the administration
of the federal territorial entity;
- on the receipt of resources by the administration
of the federal territorial entity;
- on the use of resources in spending by
the administration.
Complete information was provided by only 10 regions;
12% of the total. These were the administrations
of the Republic of Karelia, and also Amur, Astrakhan,
Kurgan, Penza, Perm, Sverdlovsk, Tambov and Tver
regions and the city of Moscow. Three answers
(3%)contained only partial information: namely
those sent by the administrations of Bashkortostan
Republic and Kaluga and Lipetsk regions. In 74
regions (85%) the heads of administration refused
to respond to the inquiry.
87 inquiries addressed to the heads of the
financial offices of regional administrations
were also circulated. These inquiries concerned
the problem of granting budget credits, namely:
to whom, on what terms and on what conditions
the credits were granted.
Such information appeared to be less confidential
than the data on the movement of monetary resources
at the above administrations, and 20 regions
(23%) offered the complete set of data requested.
These regions were: Kalmykia and Udmurtiya Republics;
Amur, Volgograd, Kamchatka, Kirov, Orenburg,
Perm, Tambov, Voronezh, Ivanovo, Kaliningrad,
Kurgan, Leningrad, Moscow, Penza and Yaroslavl
regions; the city of St.-Petersburg, Krasnoyarsk
territory, and Komi-Permyatsky Autonomous District.
66 inquiries (76%) were left without any answer
by the officials, including six formal answers
and as many refusals to provide information.
Here are two examples of the officials' formal
responses:
- A.R. Gaskarov, Deputy Minister of Finance
of Bashkortostan Republic: "the funds indicated
were granted up to the end of the fiscal year
on a refundable and non-refundable basis pursuant
to the decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers
of Bashkortostan Republic;"
- E.M. Fedosova, Head of the Finance Office
of the Administration of Ryazan Region, referring
to the transfer of the regional financial
structures to the direct management of the
administration of Ryazan region, proposes
"to address all the inquiries concerning the
financial activity of the Ryazan region directly
to the regional administration." The refusal
to give the requested information was variously
motivated.
- It is evident from the answer of P.S. Vedernikov,
the Minister of finance of Mari-El Republic,
that "the information of interest to the newspaper
does not concern the activity of the state
departments of Mari-El Republic and their
officials, but the republican budget implementation
of Mari-El Republic. The requested information
is classified and is not subject to distribution."
- Referring to the order of the Governor
of Stavropol Territory "On the approval of
a temporary list of information to be classed
as official data for restricted distribution
only," J.V. Plotnikov, the Chief Deputy Minister
of Finance of Stavropol Territory, alleges
that " information on budget credits comprise
official data for restricted distribution
only within the confines of the Government
of Stavropol Territory and the Administration
of the Governor of Stavropol Territory, this
limitation on distribution being based upon
official requirements."
- S.A. Nikitaev, Assistant to the Governor
of Murmansk Region, Head of the Department
of Finance states that, having considered
the "appeal" (request) of the editor-in-chief
of Nezavisimaya Gazeta for the provision of
information, considers that "it would be inexpedient
to perform the request, as the data requested
are not provided for in the established forms
for accounting the implementation of the consolidated
budget of the region etc."
- I.J. Gordienko, Chief Deputy Minister of
Finance for the Rostov region, based upon
the fact that "the Ministry of Finance of
the region, in strict compliance with the
legislation of Russian Federation, issues,
in those cases provided for by law, accounting
information on budget implementation for publication
in the press and to organizations for statistics,
according to the established forms," believes
that "it is not within the realm of responsibility
of the officials of the Ministry of Finance
of the region to provide the same information
in response to the inquiries made in various
ways by external organizations, as it results
in additional work for the officials."
- G.S. Izotova, the Head of the Department
of Finance, Assistant to the Governor of Vologda
Region, after having assured the editor of
Nezavisimaya Gazeta that "the Department of
Finance of the administration of the Vologda
Region is interested in the development of
positive co-operation with the media," insists:
"Prior to presenting the requested data, we
ask you to inform us in detail on the following:
for what purposes the integrated analysis
of the system for granting credit in Russian
regions will be used; what specialists will
carry out the above analysis; and whether
it is possible to provide the department of
finance of the administration of the Vologda
Region with summary information."
- N.D. Evlashev, Head of the Department of
Finance of the administration of Astrakhan
Region, gives the following reasons for refusing
to respond to the inquiry: "issuing the required
information contradicts the conditions of
the credit agreements reached by the administration
of the region, and, in turn, results in considerable
fines."
It is evident from the aggregate data on the two
inquiries that 140 top officials out of 174 (or
80%) did not answer the above inquiries or sent
formal answers and thus prevented the free access
of the public to information on the distribution
of budget funds.
On the privileges, compensations
and concessions granted by state bodies
(Phase I, June 1999, local
press)
Inquiries were circulated to state and municipal
officials. 43 inquiries out of 62 (or 69%) on
the above subject were left without answer. Only
18 answers contained the information requested
(29% of the total number of inquiries). This category
of the inquiries comprises two elements:
One part of the inquiries consisted of questions
on privileges and compensation for the management
personnel of state agencies: concessions for
executive government officials, for employees
of the administration, privileges for deputies,
for the Duma Chairman, etc.
24 inquiries were dispatched on the above
area of interest, and 21 of them ( or 88%) were
left unanswered. There were no responses on
the inquiry on the funding of business trips,
nor on the wages and declared incomes of the
deputies of the regional legislative bodies
from the officials of the Republics of Karelia
and Khakasia, Primorsk Territory, Volgograd,
Kostroma, Perm and Chelyabinsk regions, nor
of the Nenets Autonomous District. No answers
were received to the inquiry about the wages,
overseas business trips and transportation of
officials, nor the incomes and privileges concerning
the taxation of the heads of local administrations
from the Republic of Mari-El, Krasnodar Territory,
Kirov, Leningrad, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Orenburg
and Saratov Regions. Formal responses to the
inquiries were sent to the regional press by
the officials of Mordovia and Republic of Udmurtia,
and also by Tver, Vladimir and Chita Regions.
Only in three regions did journalists received
complete, straightforward information on the
following inquiries: on the incomes and wages
of the deputies of the Arkhangelsk regional
council; on the loans, aids, credits and diverse
kinds of monetary help for the acquisition of
housing by the employees of the administration
of Murmansk Region; and on fringe benefits for
the representatives of Klin Regional Council
to the deputies of Moscow Region This makes
only 12% of the total inquiries dispatched.
The other part of the inquiries concerned
the question of the social protection of the
population. Requests were sent on the following
items: on the privileges and compensations for
participants of and those disabled in the Great
Patriotic War (WWII), veterans of wars in Chechnya
and Afghanistan and their families; on expenses
for purchasing literature by teachers; on compensation
for transportation and pharmaceuticals costs
for socially disadvantaged groups; on the increase
in pensions and on the welfare of pensioners;
and also on credits granted to the population
and companies of the region.
22 inquiries (or 58%) out of 38 were left
unanswered. There were no responses on the inquiry
on privileges and compensations for pensioners,
participants of and those disabled in the Great
Patriotic War from Altai and North Osetia-Alania
Republics, from Stavropol Territory; from Moscow
Region (City of Podolsk), from Nizhny Novgorod,
Smolensk and Tyumen Regions, and also from the
Jewish and Nenets Autonomous Districts. There
were no answers to the inquiry on assistance
for children from Astrakhan, Kursk and Omsk
Regions; and there was no response to the inquiry
on privileges for companies from Voronezh, Kaliningrad
and Tambov (two inquiries) Regions; no answers
were received on granting budget credits to
individuals and legal entities from Tuva Republic
and Tomsk regions, on privileges for the employees
of the Internal Affairs Department from Kemerovo
Region, and on privileges for citizens with
honors in the Kaluga Region.
Formal answers were received from the Republic
of Udmurtia to the inquiries on the privileges
for Ministry of Internal Affairs employees and
from the Penza Region on privileges for individuals
and legal entities.
The requested information was offered fully
in only 15 answers. These were received from
Bashkortostan and Republics of Buryatia, Altai,
Krasnoyarsk and Khabarovsk territories, Ivanovo,
Kamchatka, Kurgan, Leningrad, Novgorod, Saratov,
Sakhalin and Sverdlovsk Regions, and also from
St. Petersburg and Evenki Autonomous Districts.
On the local budget and
its individual articles
(Phase I, June, 1999, local
press)
The difference between the budget inquiries from
phases I and II is insignificant: both of them
concerned the expenditure sections of the budgets.
However, the following is important: during the
first phase, information on expenditures was requested
not by national, but local media. The fact that
the results appeared approximately identical demonstrates
how persistent the reluctance of authorities is
to enter into conversation with the press both
in general and, in particular, concerning the
use of public funds.
The inquiries on expenditure were intended
for the heads of the supreme bodies of the regional
legislatures and executives. 81 inquiries were
sent by local press. 47 (58%) of them were left
without attention by the officials. There was
also one (1%) refusal to grant the information.
Five answers (6%) appeared to be formal, three
answers (4%) contained inexact information,
and only 25 answers (31%) contained the complete
set of information.
The Altai Republic did not answer the inquiries
about taxes; there was no answer on the use
of budgetary funds for youth policy development
from Bashkortostan; and on budget expenditure
in relation to the reorganization of the editorial
offices of newspapers in Mari-El Republic; on
projects on international economic activity
approved by the government in North Osetia-Alania;
on wage arrears for workers in the educational
sphere and on budget expenditure on culture,
in particular on the press in the Tatar language
in Tatarstan; on the financing of socially significant
spheres in Altai Territory; on the financing
of education and culture in Krasnodar Territory;
on funds for the maintenance of administration
staff and misuse of budgetary funds, and also
on the payment of wage debts for state employees
in Krasnoyarsk Territory; on funds secured from
the budget on the implementation of the tuberculosis
program in the Amur Region, on the financing
of public health services in the Astrakhan and
Chelyabinsk Regions; about revenue from the
sale of alcohol, the financing of radio stations,
misuse of the ecological fund, on improvement
of conditions housing for local deputies in
Bryansk Region; on the expenditures of federal
entities in the Vladimir Region; on excises
on alcohol production, on returning to the budget
funds unused on the construction of a cathedral
in the Voronezh Region; on funds spent on the
implementation of an "English Project" on cotton
in Ivanovo Region; on the financing of slum
clearance in the Kemerovo Region; on the results
of a vote on a 5% tax in the Kirov Region; on
the administration payroll in Kostroma and Sakhalin
Regions; on the financing of the Police Fun
in the Kursk Region; on the expenditure connected
to the celebration of the anniversary of Pushkin's
birth in the Leningrad and Nizhny Novgorod Regions;
on the expenditure part of the budget in Magadan
Region; on the financing of children's health
camps in Moscow region; on financial allowance
for children in Murmansk Region; on press financing
in Vologda, Novosibirsk and Rostov Regions;
on funds for the maintenance of an administrative
staff in the Orenburg Region; on covering the
budget deficit in Pskov region; on TV financing
in Ryazan Region; on debts on wages, pensions
and financial allowances for children in Saratov
Region; on the overstatement of charges for
the budget telephone in Tver Region; on volumes
of housing in Komi-Permyak Autonomous District;
on public expenditures in Nenets Autonomous
District.
Formal answers that did not offer the required
information, were received: on the financing
of education in the Arkhangelsk Region; on bank
credits under budgetary guarantee in Lipetsk
Region; on the travelling expenses of the representative
authority in the Perm Region; on debt servicing
on loans in the budget by some firms in Komi-Permyak
Autonomous District; on budget implementation
for four and a half months of 1999 with an indication
of the quantity of personal incomes and federal
transfers in the Republic of Mari-El.
The following information was partially provided:
information on transfers from the federal budget
in Primorsk Territory; on theater funding, art
gallery funding and the funding of wages for
workers in the arts, and on the financing of
the press in the Smolensk Region.
Answers in conformity with the law on mass
media were received from Mordovia Republic,
Udmurtia Republic, Stavropol Territory, Bryansk,
Volgograd, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kurgan, Leningrad,
Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod, Orel, Rostov, Tomsk
Regions, from St.Petersburg and from the Jewish
Autonomous District.
The results of the inquiry on the activity
of the judicial branch (phase II, April, 2000,
Rossiskaya Gazeta) revealed the desire of officials
to cover up judicial statistics.
86 inquiries were circulated to the regional
offices of the Department of Justice under the
Supreme Court (DJSC). The following information
was requested:
- How many criminal and civil cases were
handled by the primary and higher courts in
1999?
- How many criminal and civil cases were
handled by primary and higher courts in 1999
outside legal time-limits?
- How many criminal and civil cases were
handled in 1999 by judges alone and how many
with the participation of national assessors?
- How many appeals to overturn the legislation,
actions and decisions of officials in civil
and criminal proceedings were registered by
the courts in 1999?
- In how many appeals to overturn the legislation,
actions and decisions of officials in civil
and criminal proceedings were decisions made
for the plaintiff in 1999?
- How many complaints against the legislation,
actions and decisions of officials remained
unsatisfied in 1999?
- What sum was declared for financing the
primary and higher courts from the federal
budget in 1999?
- What proportion of the federal budget was
allocated to finance the courts in 1999?
- What proportion of the local budget was
allocated to finance the courts in 1999?
- What proportion of non-budgetary finance
was allocated to the courts in 1999?
The complete set of information requested was
provided by the offices of the DJSC in 23 regions(27%).
Partial information (lacking data on financing)
was submitted in eight answers (9%). In 55 regions
(64%) officials refused to answer the inquiry,
referring it to the DJSC. In the answers, the
heads of regional offices suggested applying directly
to the DJSC for the following reasons:
- by agreement with DJSC, information of
interest can be obtained from the Department
of Public Relations of the DJSC (The Head
of Department of Justice in the Ryazan Region
A.N. Pavloukhin);
- The Department of Justice sends a complete
annual report on the work of the department
and the courts to the DJSC. (Head of the Department
of Justice in the Republic of Khakasia, I.
Voskoboynikov; Head of the Department of Justice
in Krasnodar Territory, V.V. Pletnev; Deputy
Head of the Office of the Department of Justice
in Krasnoyarsk Territory, V.P. Karasev; Head
of the Department of Justice in Arkhangelsk
Region, Y.A. Pushkarev; Assistant Head of
the Department of Justice in Ivanovo Region,
I. Krasnopevtsev; Head of the Department of
Justice in the Novgorod Region, V.I. Epifafanov;
Head of the Department of Justice in the Orenburg
Region, V.K. Koupchik; Head of the Department
of Justice in the Chita Region, V.I. Leontiev;
Head of Department of Justice in the Evenki
Autonomous District, S.A. Osogostok; Deputy
Head of the Department of Justice in the Chucot
Autonomous District, V.N. Mischerin);
- The Department of Justice is not responsible
for the required information, and so suggests
you apply to the Department of Public Relations
of the DJSC (Head of the Office of the Department
of Justice in Novosibirsk Region N.V. Derov);
- The required items of information can be
obtained most effectively from the Department
of Public Relations of the DJSC (Head of the
Department of Justice in the Omsk Region A.A.
Zinchenko);
- Statistical data on court activity are
intended for internal use and can only be
obtained by designation of the DJSC (Head
of the Department of Justice in the Altai
Republic State Counsel 3rd Class R.P. Nonoukov,
Head of the Department of Justice in the Voronezh
region State Counsel 3rd Class G.T. Scherbatykh);
The required information can be obtained from
the Department of Public Relations and Information
of the head office for the organization and legal
support of court activity of the DJSC (Head of
the Department of Justice in Buryatiya Republic,
V.V.Kharkhanov; Head of the Department of Justice
in Vladimir region, V.A. Firsov; Assistant to
the Head of the Department of Justice in the Penza
region, S.N. Avdoshin; Head of Department of Justice
in the Sakhalin region, P.A. Samofalov; Head of
Department of Justice in Tomsk region, A. S. Zouev;
Head of Department of Justice in Ust-Orda Buryat
Autonomous District, L.A. Antsiferova; Head of
the Department of Justice in Dolgano-Nenetski
Autonomous District, M.V. Trofimchouk).
The following inquiries either received no
response, or no response in more than 50 percent
of cases:
- on crime;
- on the environment;
- on educational issues;
- on freedom of movement and choice of place
of residence;
- on violations of human rights and freedoms,
and also illegal acts on the part of state
bodies.
On crime
(Phase I: June 1999, local
press)
38 inquiries on crime were circulated by the local
press. Local heads of law-enforcement agencies
were asked for information on the following topics:
drug trafficking, drug addiction, terrorism, success
in investigating criminal offences, theft statistics,
number of crimes committed by minors, economic
crime, illegal actions by the employees of state
bodies, court activity and decisions on specific
cases etc.
Complete information was only given by officials
from 14 regions (37%): the Republics of Tatarstan
and North Osetia-Alania, Primorsk and Stavropol
Territories, Irkutsk, Vladimir, Kaliningrad,
Kaluga (two answers), Kirov, Novgorod and Smolensk
Regions, and also Nenets and Evenki Autonomous
Districts. Partial information about drug dealing
was submitted in one answer (or 3%) from Kurgan
Region.
Officials ignored press inquiries in: Bashkortostan
Republic (on traffic accidents: number of injuries
caused by drunken drivers); the Republic of
Mari-El (on felony statistics); the Republic
of Mordovia (on theft statistics); in Krasnodar
Territory (on crimes among the employees of
the Chief Directorate of Internal Affairs);
Krasnoyarsk Territory (on crimes among top officials,
on internal investigations); and Stavropol Territory
(on economic crimes); Amur Region (on statistics
on crimes with the participation of citizens
of the People's Republic of China); Arkhangelsk
Region (on political terrorism and manifestations
of fascism); Bryansk Region (two inquiries:
on expenses connected with forensic medicine
and on economic crime); Volgograd Region (on
the finances of the State Inspection for Traffic
Safety and on statistics on auto-theft); Voronezh
Region (on drug addiction and crimes among the
employees of law-enforcement bodies); Kostroma
Region (on the state of burglary investigations);
Lipetsk Region (on the state of murder investigations);
Magadan Region (on illegal sales of alcohol);
Novosibirsk Region (on court activities); Orenburg
Region (on criminal activity on the part of
the employees of bodies of state authority and
the Department of Internal Affairs); Pskov Region
(on thefts); Tambov Region (on statistics on
serious crime); Saratov Region (on recidivism
statistics); and in Komi-Permyak Autonomous
District (on thefts). Formal answers to press
inquiries were received from the Republic of
Karelia (on contract killings); from Kurgan
Region (on the number of offenders under 18);
and from Ulyanovsk Region (on specific criminal
cases).
Thus, information was missing on 24 inquiries
(62% of the total number of inquiries).
On state enviroment
(Phase I: JUNE 1999, local
press)
Only 22 answers (39%) were received to the 57
inquiries circulated by the local press to the
heads of Committees for Environmental Protection
of local administrations. They contain information
on storage facilities for radioactive waste, on
background radiation in cities, on pollution of
the rivers and reservoirs, on violation of legislation
for environmental protection and other information
describing the state of the environment in the
regions. 35 inquiries (61%) were left without
any answer.
Here is the list of the problems which were
deemed confidential by officials: the state
of the coastal zone Yenisei within the boundaries
of Kyzyl (Tuva Republic); protection and use
of underground mineral waters in the Izhevsk
Region (Republic of Udmurtia); the quantity
and structure of chemicals permeating into the
atmosphere, water and subsoil of areas of Republic
during space rocket launches (Altai Republic);
the environmental consequences of space rockets
falling into the taiga (Republic of Khakassia);
air quality; the presence natural radon radiation
in residential buildings (Krasnoyarsk Territory);
the effect of toxic gas emissions and radioactive
waste on human health (Astrakhan Region); landfill
sites (Vladimir Region); industrial drainage
into the Volga River (Volgograd Region); air
quality and the state of reservoirs (Voronezh
Region); the consequences of nuclear explosions
(Ivanovo area); the quality of tap water (Kaliningrad
Region); measures for the control of BSE-infected
(mad cow disease) meat (Kaluga Region); harmful
emissions and industrial waste (Kirov Region);
landfill disposal of rocket waste (Kostroma
Region); destruction of chemical weapons (Kurgan
Region); exhaust gas toxicity control (Kursk
Region); felling and reforestation (Leningrad
Region); industrial metallurgical complex activities
(Lipetsk Region); chemical pollution of reservoirs
(Magadan Region); background radiation (Moscow
Region); air pollution (Novosibirsk Region);
budget financing of the environmental fund (Orenburg
Region); industrial crab fishing (Sakhalin Region);
background radiation, construction of the core
of a nuclear power station (Sverdlovsk Region);
malfunctions at nuclear power stations (Smolensk
Region); financing of environmental protection
(Tambov Region); infringement of nature protection
legislation: the enterprises and officials who
have incurred criminal liability for violation
of environmental standards (Chelyabinsk Region);
industrial preparation of wood (cedar) by foreigners
(Jewish Autonomous District); state of the environment
in the region (Perm, Penza, Rostov, Ryazan,
Tver Regions, City of St. Petersburg, Komi-Permyak
Autonomous District).
On educational issues
(Phase I: June 1999, Novaya
Gazeta and local press)
Of a list of 108 inquiries devoted to the problems
of education and addressed to the heads of offices
for education under local administrations, 88
inquiries were sent by the editorial office of
Novaya Gazeta and 20 inquiries were sent by the
local press. 66 inquiries (61%) were left unanswered.
55 regions refused to provide Novaya Gazeta
with information on the quality of education
in schools, and also on the number of children
of school age not in education in primary and
high school.
Thus, the officials ignored inquiries in 47
regions: in Altai, Bashkortostan, Buryat, Ingushetia,
Kalmykia, Karelia, Komi, Mari-El, Sakha (Yakutia),
North Osetia-Alania, Khakasia, Kabardino-Balkaria,
Karachaevo-Cherkess and Chuvashia Republics;
in Altai, Primorsk, Stavropol, Khabarovsk Territories;
in Astrakhan, Bryansk, Vladimir, Voronezh, Irkutsk,
Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kamchatka, Kemerovo, Magadan,
Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Orel,
Perm, Samara, Saratov, Sakhalin, Tver, Tula,
Chelyabinsk Regions; in the cities of Moscow
and. St. Petersburg, and also in Agin-Buryat,
Nenets, Taimyr, Khanty-Mansisk, Chukot and Evenki
Autonomous Districts.
In the eight regions below the officials refused
to render the information requested by Novaya
Gazeta with reference to the absence of state
statistical reports on the data required:
Belgorod, Lipetsk, Moscow, Omsk, Ryazan, Sverdlovsk,
Tambov and Tomsk.
Eleven of the inquiries of the local press
which were left without answer concerned the
following questions: budget financing of education
(Orenburg Region); wage arrears to teachers
(Khabarovsk Territory and Kaliningrad Region;
assessment of the activity of educational institutions
(Leningrad and Omsk Regions); final examinations
(Sverdlovsk Region); target recommendations
of entry requirements for institutes of higher
education (Altai Republic); custodian allowances
(Vologda Region); control of Sunday school activity
(Voronezh Region); number of children's camps
and the prospective number of children who attend
them (Chelyabinsk Region); the pioneer movement
(Bryansk Region).
Partial information was given in response
to three inquiries (on the inquiry of Novaya
Gazeta in Tuva Republic and Kurgan and Novgorod
Regions), and 39 answers (36%) rendered all
the information in full, of which 30 answers
were to Novaya Gazeta and nine answers to the
local press.
Responses
to Requests for Information
On freedom of movement
and choice of place of residence
(Phase II: March 2000,
Novaya Gazeta)
86 inquiries were dispatched to the regional
offices for internal affairs with the purpose
of researching the problem of freedom of movement
and choice of place of residence. The following
information was requested of passport departments:
- The number of applications for registration
of place of residence filed with the appropriate
bodies in 1999 in the given region by Russian
citizens, non-citizens and those without
citizenship; - Number of applications granted
in 1999;
- Number of Russian citizens, non-citizens
and those without citizenship refused registration
in 1999;
- Details of local laws and regulations
(name of the law or regulation, its number,
the date of its acceptance) forming the
basis for registration of citizens at a
place of residence;
- Details of documents necessary for the
registration of citizens at a place of residence
in the given region;
- The duty raised for registration, and
the total penalty for lack of registration.
Full information was submitted in 21 answers
(24% of the total number of inquiries). Answers
were received from Dagestan, Karelia and North
Osetia-Alania Republics; from Krasnodar and
Krasnoyarsk Territories; from the Bryansk, Voronezh,
Irkutsk, Kaluga, Magadan, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod,
Novgorod, Orenburg, Orel, Saratov, and Tula
Regions; the city of St. Petersburg, Jewish
Autonomous Region, Chukot and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts.
The inquiry was answered partially by 16
regions (19%): Altai, Bashkortostan, Komi
and Tuva republics; Primorsk Territories;
Amur, Arkhangelsk, Belgorod, Vologda, Ivanovo,
Murmansk, Omsk, Penza, Ulyanovsk and Chelyabinsk
regions; Khanty-Mansisk autonomous district.
In 49 regions (57%) officials refused to
give the information required, either answering
formally, without addressing the real question,
or simply ignoring the inquiries of the press.
Formal answers were received from 16%, or
14 regions of Russia: Tatarstan Republic,
Altai Territory, Volgograd, Kaliningrad, Kamchatka,
Kemerovo, Kirov, Kostroma, Kursk, Perm, Rostov,
Tyumen and Yaroslavl Regions, and also from
Moscow.
In 35 regions (41%) officials ignored the
inquiry. These were the heads of the Ministries
of Internal Affairs in Adygei, Buryat, Kalmykia,
Mari-El, Mordovia, Sakha (Yakutia) and Khakasia
Republics, and also in Kabardino-Balkaria,
Karachaevo-Cherkess, Udmurtia and Chuvashia
Republics. These are the heads of Departments
of Internal Affairs in Stavropol and Khabarovsk
Territories, Astrakhan, Vladimir, Kurgan,
Lipetsk, Novosibirsk, Pskov, Ryazan, Samara,
Sakhalin, Sverdlovsk, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver,
Tomsk, Chita regions; Agin-Buryat, Komi-Permyak,
Koryak, Nenets, Taimyr, Ust-Orda Buryat and
Evenki Autonomous Districts.
Besides this, the officials of 16 regions
"forgot" to specify the local regulations
on the registration of the citizens in the
given region, referring in the answer to federal
law as the sole basis for registration. But
local regulations not only alter the processes
of registration of citizens in a place of
stay and residence, but also violate federal
legislation. Such laws and decisions were
"overlooked" in Altai and Bashkortostan Republics,
in Primorsk Territory, in Amur, Belgorod,
Volgograd, Vologda, Ivanovo, Kemerovo, Murmansk,
Omsk, Penza, Perm, Ulyanovsk, Yaroslavl regions,
and in Khanty-Mansisk Autonomous District.
On violations of human
rights and freedoms, and also illegal actions
on the part of state agencies
(Phase I, June 1999,
local press)
The inquiries were directed first of all to
the Office of the Public Prosecutor and also
to the Department of Internal Affairs of each
region.
36 answers were received to 71 inquiries,
with complete information submitted in 30
answers, making 42%. Two answers (3%) gave
only partial information, four answers (6%)
were formal and 35 inquiries (49%) were left
without answers. Thus, 39 answers had information
missing, (55% of total inquiries).
Answers in complete conformity with the
law were provided by the Office of the Public
Prosecutor in Buryatia, Mordovia and North
Osetia-Alania Republics; in the Altai and
Primorsk Territories; in Amur, Arkhangelsk,
Astrakhan, Volgograd, Vologda, Ivanovo, Irkutsk,
Kirov, Kostroma (inquiry on illegal acts on
the part of state agencies); Leningrad, Lipetsk,
Moscow (inquiries to the Office of the Public
Prosecutor of Shchelkovo and Klin); Nizhny
Novgorod, Orel Regions (two inquiries: on
the number of offences among the employees
of the Department of Internal Affairs and
about crimes committed by the employees of
Department of Internal Affairs); Penza, Pskov
Regions (inquiry to the Head of administration
on the legitimacy of the construction of gas
stations); Samara, Sverdlovsk Regions (inquiry
on actions against the enterprises defaulting
on wages); Smolensk; Tomsk (inquiry to the
public prosecutor of Seversk on the investigation
into the destruction of a lake on Kizhirovsky
island); and Tula regions, and also in Evenki
Autonomous District.
Partial information was offered by the Office
of the Public Prosecutor in the Kaliningrad
Region and Komi-Permyak Autonomous District.
Formal answers on inquiries were received
from the Office of the Public Prosecutor of
the Republic of Udmurtia (on the access of
journalists to the daily reports of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs), Voronezh Region (on
the attempt to implement a new procedure for
electing the administration head by a vote
of the deputies of the Regional Duma or the
heads of territorial entities in the region,
and on the actions of the Office of the Public
Prosecutor in this regard) and Kemerovo Region
(on the reaction of the Office of the Public
Prosecutor to illegal decisions by the executive
and representative branches of the local government
and possible action to be taken where the
local government does not address the protests
of the public prosecutor), and also the Nenets
Autonomous District (on abuses on the part
of "Arkhangelskgeoldobycha" management).
Regions where the officials preferred to
ignore inquiries were as follows: Altai Republic
(on abuses by the employees of Chemalsk District
Department of Internal Affairs), Bashkortostan
Republic (on the circumstances of the death
of the Head of the Department of Criminal
Investigations of the District Department
of Internal Affairs; Karelia and Mari-El Republics
(on offences by staff of law-enforcement bodies);
Tatarstan (on specific information in particular
criminal cases; Tuva (on the activity of the
chief of the sector of republic president's
administration office for political parties
and public movements); the Republic of Khakasia
(on statistics on criminal cases concerning
the former and present chiefs of the office
for local self-management); Krasnodar Territory
(on illegal acts on the part of the employees
of the Department of Internal Affairs, including
actions in excess of service powers, bribery,
connection with criminal organizations); Krasnoyarsk
Territory (on the legal status of some regulations);
Stavropol territory (on the system of monitoring
the execution of laws passed by the State
Duma of the territory); Bryansk Territory
(on actions of the Office of the Public Prosecutor
on instances of violations of the right to
private property which were referred to in
the article "In Bryansk they continue to 'rape'
old women"); Vladimir Region (on the misappropriation
by the administration of finances from the
roads fund); Kaluga Region (on the use by
the governor of the region of budget finances
for holidays and on their compensation); Kostroma
Region (on the inspection by the Office of
the Public Prosecutor of the implementation
of the decisions of the referendum); Kursk
Region (on the activity of the Police Development
Fund); Leningrad Region (on illegal acts by
state agencies in 1998, with indications of
the measures taken based on the facts discovered);
Magadan Region (on the measures for prevention
of delays in wages payments); Moscow Region
(Podolsk: on registered cases of illegal prison
sentences in criminal cases); Murmansk and
Rostov Regions (on cases of action in excess
of official powers by the Department of Internal
Affairs); Novgorod Region (on the basis of
the compulsory hospitalization in a psychiatric
hospital of a person injured through a robbery);
Novosibirsk Region (on statistics of judicial
decisions); Perm Region (on written appeals
of the inhabitants of the Region concerning
the infringement of human rights and freedom
by bodies of state authority, on measures
taken by the Office of the Public Prosecutor
in case of their confirmation); Pskov Region
(on the control of journalistic investigations);
Ryazan Region (2 inquiries: to the Department
of Internal Affairs on cases of refusal to
distribute military IDs, and to the Office
of the Public Prosecutor on crimes committed
by employees of the departments of internal
affairs); Saratov Region (to the chairman
of the Commission on Human Rights: on the
number of complaints from citizens in connection
with the infringement of human rights and
freedoms by state bodies). Sverdlovsk Region
(inquiry on conditions to grant compelled
emigrant status, on statistics of refusals
to grant this status); Tambov Region (on the
acts confirming the existence of institutes
of registration); Tver Region (inquiry to
department of internal affairs on infringements
of the rights of drivers by the employees
of the State Inspection for Traffic Safety);
Tomsk Region (on the legitimacy of refusing
to allow TV personnel to film an accident);
Tyumen Region (on specific decisions taken
by the Office of the Public Prosecutor); Chelyabinsk
Region (on the control of the activity of
the Dubrov State Agricultural Enterprise by
the Office of the Public Prosecutor); Chita
Region (on the results of control of the activity
of Zhirekenskii Molibden JSC by the Office
of the Public Prosecutor); city of St. Petersburg
(inquiry to the Chief of the Department of
Internal Affairs on the number of complaints
received from citizens in 1998 and the first
quarter of 1999 concerning instances of physical
abuse by the police, and of illegal detention;
on the number of criminal cases started as
a result of the above appeals, and on the
number of such cases referred to the court).
The set of inquiries listed below was categorized
as of low interest, with a lack of answers
provided:
- on the health of the population; sanitation;
demographics;
- on states of emergency and accidents
endangering the health of citizens; on forecasts
of natural catastrophes and their consequences;
- on the development of small business;
- on crimes against state authorities;
- on the protection of animals;
- on the protection of the rights of consumers.
On the health of the
population; sanitation; demographics
(Phase I, June 1999,
LOCAL press, Novaya Gazeta)
In total, 124 inquiries were dispatched on these
topics. The addressees of inquiries were, mainly,
the heads of Departments of Public Health Services
and the main sanitary doctors of the regions.
69 answers (56%) were received which contained
the required information, including 66 (54%)
complete and three (2%) partial answers. There
were no answers to 55 inquiries, including
four formal answers, or 44% of the total number.
The inquiries of local press broached a
number of subjects connected with the safety
of the population: the effect of the environment,
sanitation and epidemiological conditions;
drug addiction; tuberculosis; AIDS infection;
statistics on oncological diseases; infant
mortality, prophylactic measures of diseases,
quality of medicines, control of food products
etc.
21 answers (58%) were received to 36 inquiries,
with the remaining 15 (42%) disregarded. The
required information was provided by the Republics
of Karelia and Mordovia (on the statistics
of tuberculosis in the republic); the Republic
of Tatarstan (on hepatitis prophylactic measures)
and the Republic of Udmurtia (on the encephalitis
harvest-bug situation ); Astrakhan Region
(on dioxin control of food products); Vologda
Region (on the funding of medical institutions
and paid services); Kamchatka Region (on rendering
paid medical services to the population);
Kurgan Region (on sanitation and the epidemiological
situation); Lipetsk Region (on measures for
trans-gene control of products); Murmansk
Region (on the problems of licensing institutions
for medical treatment and prophylactic measures);
Moscow Region (Klin: on AIDS statistics);
Penza Region (two inquiries: on cases of transmission
of infectious diseases during blood transfusions
and on the demographic processes in the region
over the last 10 years); Omsk Region (on the
quality of medicines in pharmacies); Rostov
Region (on the infectious disease situation);
Tver Region (on cases of tuberculosis in the
region); Tomsk Region (on the solution of
housing problems for experts in the field
of microsurgery); Tula Region (on population
growth); in the city of St. Petersburg (on
tuberculosis in city); in the Jewish Autonomous
Region (on the threat of harvest-bug encephalitis
for children in summer camps) and in Komi-Permyak
autonomous district (on measures against drug
addiction and glue sniffing amongst young
people).
There were no answers to the following inquiries:
in the Republic of Buryatia (on the number
of patients with AIDS, drug addiction and
alcoholism); Tuva Republic (on the results
of medico-legal arbitration) and the Republic
of Khakasia (on infant mortality); in Altai
Territory (on drug addiction) and Khabarovsk
Territory (on the dynamics of venereal diseases
in the territory); in Volgograd Region (on
childhood diseases associated with oncology);
Kursk Region (on demographic data); Magadan
Region (on measures for the prevention of
dangerous diseases). Moscow Region (Podolsk
- on the construction of new polyclinics since
1995); Nizhny Novgorod Region (on the problem
of prophylactic measures against iodine deficiency);
Leningrad and Novosibirsk Regions (on prophylactic
measures against harvest-bug encephalitis).
Rostov Region (on sanitation and the epidemiological
situation in the city for June-July 1999);
and Chita Region (on the problems of the regional
pediatric hospital); in the city of St. Petersburg
(on the delivery of infected imported meat).
The Novaya Gazeta inquiry was addressed
to the heads of the ministries and offices
of public health services. It concerned the
complex analysis of the state of health of
citizens in the regions of the Russian Federation
and contained the following questions:
- Average life expectancy in the federal
territorial entity in 1998 (separately for
men and women and average for the population);
- level of birth rate (per 1000 men) in
1998;
- mortality rate (per 1000 men) in 1998;
- number of known drug-users;
- number of places in regional medical
institutions intended for treating drug
addicts.
40 inquiries (45%) out of 88 were left without
answers. 46 (53%) regions offered complete information.
2 answers (2%) offered partial information.
No answers to the inquiry were received
from Ingushetia, Buryat, Karelia, Komi, North
Osetia-Alania,Tatarstan, Tuva, Udmurtia, Karachaevo-Cherkess
and Kabardino-Balkarian republics; from Altai
and Krasnodar Territories; from Amur, Bryansk,
Vladimir, Voronezh, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kamchatka,
Kemerovo, Kirov, Kurgan, Kursk, Leningrad,
Murmansk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orenburg, Orel,
Penza, Perm, Rostov, Ryazan, Samara, Saratov,
Sverdlovsk, Tver, Tomsk, Tula, Tyumen, Chita
and Yaroslavl Regions; from the City of Moscow,
and also from Taimyr, Evenki and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts.
Partial information was sent in response
to the inquiry by Krasnoyarsk Territory and
Irkutsk Region.
Vague, noncommittal answers containing none
of the required information, were sent by
the Republic of Bashkortostan, Stavropol territory
and Moscow and Sakhalin regions.
No answer to the inquiry was received from
Adygei, Altai, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Mari-El,
Mordovia, Sakha (Yakutia), Khakasia and Chuvashia
Republics or from Primorsk and Khabarovsk
Territories; Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan, Belgorod,
Volgograd, Vologda, Ivanovo, Kostroma, Lipetsk,
Magadan, Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod, Pskov,
Smolensk, Tambov, Ulyanovsk and Chelyabinsk
Regions; from the City of St. Petersburg,
the Jewish Autonomous Region, and also from
Agin-Buryat, Komi-Permyak, Koryak, Nenets,
Ust-Orda Buryat, Khanty-Mansisk and Chukot
Autonomous Districts.
On states of emergency
and accidents endangering the health of citizens,
on the forecasts of natural catastrophes and
their consequences
(Phase I, June 1999,
local press)
The addressees of these inquiries were the heads
of republic Ministries of Emergency Situations
and the regional Departments of Civil Defense
and Emergency Situations. 20 answers (57%) out
of 35 inquiries contained the information required.
The information required was offered to
editorial offices by Altai, Bashkortostan,
Buryat, North Osetia-Alania, Tatarstan and
Khakasia Republics; and by Altai Territory;
by Ivanovo, Irkutsk, Kemerovo, Kursk, Moscow
(Klin and Shchelkovo), Nizhny Novgorod, Penza,
Perm, Saratov, Smolensk and Tver Regions;
Evenki Autonomous District. The Head of the
regional Center for Civil Defense and Emergency
situations in the Chita region, Major-General
V. I. Lyaschenko formally answered the inquiry
on probable natural catastrophes in the Chita
region in the second half of 1999.
Fourteen inquiries (40%) received no response.
The local authorities refused to provide information:
on the reasons for and consequences of the
fire of 05.21.99 in Kyzyl, the capital of
the Tuva Republic; on the statistical data
on emergency situations in Krasnoyarsk Territory
and in the Kostroma Region; on forecasts of
natural catastrophes in the Amur Region; on
the state of the cylinders of liquid chlorine
found on the territory of the Arkhangelsk
Region; on the emergency state of a number
of schools in the Kirov Region; on the case
of a dangerous situation at the Leningrad
nuclear power station and on the effects of
a failure at the industrial complex for pulp-and-paper
production in the Leningrad Region; on forecasts
of forest fires in the Moscow Region; on background
radiation in the cities of Ryazan and Birobidzhan
(Jewish Autonomous Region); on the damage
resulting from forest fires at Sakhalin; on
the consequences of the failure at Mayak industrial
enterprise in the Sverdlovsk region in 1957;
on floods and forecasts of forest fires in
the Chelyabinsk Region.
On the development of
small business
(Phase I, June 1999,
Novaya Gazeta)
This inquiry was addressed to the heads of the
representative branch of the government in each
territorial entity and concerned the expenditure
of budget funds on small business development.
The following information was requested:
- what percentage of the total sum of the
regional budget for expenditure in 1999
is earmarked for the development of small
business;
- what percentage of the total sum of monetary
resources was really allocated by the regional
budget for small business development on
06.01.99.
34 (39%) inquiries out of 88 were left without
answer. Two (2%) regions answered formally,
without offering the information requested.
One response only partially answered the questions
and 51 answers (58%) contained the complete
set of information required. The question of
small business development was the most fully
answered as compared to other elements of the
complete list of subjects of inquiry from during
the first phase.
The heads of higher legislative bodies of
the following territorial entities did not
respond to the inquiries: Adygei, Bashkortostan,
Ingushetia, Kalmykia, Karelia, Sakha (Yakutia),
North Osetia-Alania, Tatarstan and Khakasia
Republics; Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk and Stavropol
territories, Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan, Belgorod,
Volgograd, Voronezh, Lipetsk, Magadan, Murmansk,
Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orenburg, Penza, Sverdlovsk,
Tambov, Ulyanovsk and Chelyabinsk regions;
the city of Moscow and St.-Petersburg, and
also Komi-Permyak, Taimyr, Evenki and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts.
The chairmen of Bryansk Regional Duma and
the Legislative Assembly of Kaluga region
confined themselves to formal correspondence
with editorial offices.
Partial information was offered by the chairman
of the Ryazan Regional Duma.
The majority of legislative branches of
regional governments answered the inquiry
completely: Altai, Buryat, Dagestan, Komi,
Mari-El, Mordovia, Tuva, and also Kabardino-Balkari,
Karachaevo-Cherkess, Udmurtia and Chuvashia
Republics; Altai, Primorsk and Khabarovsk
Territories; Amur, Vladimir, Vologda, Ivanovo,
Irkutsk, Kaliningrad, Kamchatka, Kemerovo,
Kirov, Kostroma, Kurgan, Kursk, Leningrad,
Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod, Orel, Perm,
Pskov, Rostov, Samara, Saratov, Sakhalin,
Smolensk, Tver, Tomsk, Tula, Tyumen, Chita
and Yaroslavl Regions, and also in the Jewish
Autonomous Region and Agin-Buryat, Koryak,
Nenets, Ust-Orda Buryat, Khanty-Mansisk and
Chukot Autonomous Districts.
On crimes against the
state
(Phase I, June 1999,
Novaya Gazeta)
Information concerning criminal cases involving
of chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (crimes against the state, the interests
of state services and services in bodies of
local self-government) was requested from the
Office of the Public Prosecutor of 88 regions
of Russia.
34 (39%) inquiries out of 88 were left unanswered.
54 answers were received, information on corruption
being contained in 43 (49%) answers. Four
public prosecutions departments (4%) notified
editorial offices of their refusal to grant
information and seven (8%) answered formally.
Silence was the only response from the public
prosecutors of Adygei, Altai, Dagestan, Mari-El,
Sakha (Yakutia), Tatarstan, Khakasia, Kabardino-Balkaria
and Karachaevo-Cherkess Republics; of Krasnoyarsk
and Khabarovsk Territories; of Vologda, Irkutsk,
Kirov, Kostroma, Kursk, Lipetsk, Moscow, Orenburg,
Penza, Perm, Rostov, Smolensk, Tomsk, Tyumen
and Chita Regions; of the City of Moscow,
of the Jewish Autonomous Region, of Agin-Buryat,
Nenets, Taimyr, Ust-Orda Buryat, Khanty-Mansisk
and Evenki Autonomous Districts.
The officials of the following regions got
rid of journalists with formal brush-offs:
Bashkortostan and Tuva Republics, and also
Astrakhan, Kurgan, Novgorod, Pskov and Tula
Regions.
The officials of several regions flatly
refused to provide information. These regions
are: Udmurtia and Komi Republics, Altai Territory
and Komi-Permyak Autonomous Districts.
Let us examine the motivation for refusals:
- Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Komi
Republic, N.I. Ryzhov, Senior Judicial Counsel,
refers in the text of his refusal to the
Decree of the Government of the Russian
Federation # 834 of 07.09.94, which approves
the Regulation on the State Committee for
Statistics of the Russian Federation: "The
statistical information collected and developed
by state statistics agencies, and related
information on crime, is the federal property
of the Russian Federation. The State Committee
for Statistics of Russia and its territorial
entities has the right to the publication
and distribution of this statistical information.
In connection with above stated regulations,
the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the
Komi Republic cannot provide you with the
information requested."
- Head of the Department for the Supervision
of Criminal Proceedings, Investigation and
Public Prosecutions Departments of the Republic
of Udmurtia, Senior Judicial Counsel V.V.
Chuvashov asserts that: "The specified items
of information are for official use only."
- Public Prosecutor of Altai Territory,
State Counsel Second Class Y.F. Paraskun,
referring to article 51 of federal law "On
the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the
Russian Federation" and to the instruction
on the statistical reporting of investigative
work developed and authorized by the general
prosecutions department, informs you that
"the form of statistical information requested
is not stipulated for provision by the Office
of the Public Prosecutor."
- Deputy Public Prosecutor of Komi-Permyak
Autonomous District, Senior Judicial Counsel
M. P. Botalov refuses in view of "the confidentiality
of the information required, and also of
the unconfirmed status of the body on behalf
of which the editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta
is acting."
The required information was provided in full
by Chuvashia, Buryatia, Ingushetia, Karelia,
Mordovia and North Osetia-Alania Republics,;
by Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories; by Belgorod,
Vladimir, Volgograd, Ivanovo, Kaliningrad, Kaluga,
Kamchatka, Kemerovo, Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod,
Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orel, Ryazan, Samara, Saratov,
Sakhalin, Sverdlovsk, Tambov, Ulyanovsk, Chelyabinsk
and Yaroslavl Regions; by the City of St. Petersburg,
and also by the Koryak, Chukot and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts. Partial information was
provided by the Republic of Kalmykia, Primorsk
Territory, Amur, Arkhangelsk, Bryansk, Voronezh,
Leningrad, Magadan and Tver Regions.
The local press circulated only one inquiry
on corruption, directed by Vremya newspaper
(Shchelkovo of Moscow Region) to its local
Public Prosecutor's Office. A comprehensive
answer was received, although with delays.
On protection of animals
(Phase II, March 2000,
V MIRE ZHIVOTNYKH ("The World of Animals")
magazine)
During the discussion of the new federal law
on protection of animals V Mire Zhivotnykh magazine
undertook an attempt to analyze the state of
animal protection in the RF territorial entities.
Three inquiries were sent to each region, making
256 in total. There was no response to 94 (37%)
of them. 162 (63%) answers contained the information
required, 147 answers contained complete, and
35 only partial information.
In two of the above inquiries, information
should have been provided on the number of
cases of poaching registered in each region
in 1999 and on prosecution of cases of poaching
(according to articles 256 and 258 of the
Criminal Code of Russian Federation). The
inquiries were sent to regional Public Prosecutors'
Offices, including nature protection prosecutions
departments (87 inquiries) and to the offices
for the protection, control and regulation
of the use of hunting animals (82 inquiries).
According to the results of two inquiries,
134 (79%) addressees out of 169 answered,
24 (14%) of them offering only partial information.
33 (20%) addressees ignored the inquiry and
2 (1%) confined themselves to formal, noncommittal
responses.
As to the first inquiry (to the Office of
the Public Prosecutor), the following 12 (14%)
regions offered no answers: Buryatiya, Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkarian and Karachaevo-Cherkess,
Mordovia and Khakasya Republics; the Amur,
Voronezh, Lipetsk, Penza and Tomsk Regions,
and also Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Districts.
Refusals to respond with the reference to
"environmental protection and law-enforcement
agencies which possess such information" was
presented by the Office of the Public Prosecutor
of the Kirov Region; the same noncommittal
answer, but with reference to the order of
the RF general prosecutions department of
10.29.97 # 293-ш, was provided by the Office
of the Public Prosecutor of the city of Moscow.
Incomplete information was offered by the
public prosecutions departments of Volgograd
and Tyumen Regions.
73 (84%) regions started a dialogue with
the press, thus making the subject of criminal
liability for poaching and the severe abuse
of animals part of the most open category
for discussion in society with the direct
participation of the officials of state law-enforcement
agencies.
According to the second inquiry (to the
offices for the protection, control and regulation
of use of hunting animals), 21 (26%) addressees
out of 82 remained silent. These comprise
the heads of the above offices of Adygei,
Altai, Kalmykia, Sakha (Yakutia), Tuva and
Khakasia Republics; of Altai and Primorsk
Territories; of Arkhangelsk, Belgorod, Volgograd,
Irkutsk, Kostroma, Omsk, Penza, Rostov, Saratov,
Tver and Chelyabinsk Regions, and also of
the Jewish Autonomous Region and Chukot Autonomous
District.
Incomplete information was sent by eight
(10%) regions: Vologda, Voronezh, Kaliningrad,
Moscow, Novosibirsk, Ryazan and Tomsk Regions,
and also Khanty-Mansisk Autonomous District.
49 (60%) regions offered the information
required. Except for the cities of Moscow
and St. Petersburg, Tambov Region Agin-Buryat
and Nenets Autonomous Districts, to which
for whatever reasons inquiries were not sent,
others, those not otherwise mentioned above
all answered. In this inquiry, there were
no formalized brush-offs or refusals to answer,
testifying to the openness and availability
of this information.
The third inquiry, which was addressed to
the heads of the local offices of municipal
services, was very specific. It concerned
the problems of stray animals and contains
the following questions:
Whether there are shelters for homeless
of animals in the region; the number of shelters
in state and private ownership; What funds
are provided from the budget for financing
the above shelters.
Judging by the data gathered, the management
(departments) of offices of municipal services
appear to be one of the most secretive regional
departments. Of 87 inquiries 59 (68%) were
left unanswered. In eleven regions (12%) only
partial information was offered: the Republic
of Chuvashia; Krasnoyarsk Territory; Ivanovo,
Kemerovo, Kirov, Murmansk, Penza, Pskov and
Yaroslavl Regions; Taimyr and Chukot Autonomous
Districts.
The complete set of information required
on shelters for stray animals was offered
only by seventeen regions, making 20% of the
total number of inquiries. These were: Altai,
Buryat, Dagestan and Mordovia Republics; Krasnodar
Territory, Volgograd, Kaluga, Kamchatka, Kostroma,
Moscow, Orenburg, Perm, Sakhalin, Tambov and
Tula Regions;. St. Petersburg and Komi-Permyak
Autonomous District.
On protection of the
rights of consumers
(Phase II, February 2000,
Spros magazine)
Spros magazine circulated inquiries to the heads
of local legislative and executive bodies with
the purpose of studying the group of problems
connected to the protection of the rights of
the consumer.
As a whole, of 249 inquiries devoted to
the study of the problems of protecting the
rights of consumers, answers were received
to 178 (71%) inquiries, and there were no
answers to 71 inquiries (29%).
The first inquiry was directed to the chairmen
of courts in 85 regions. The editorial office
of Novaya Gazeta requested the following items
of information from representatives of judicial
authority:
- How many cases on claims of consumers
according to the Law on the Protection of
the Rights of Consumers were handled by
the courts in the region in 1999?
- How many cases were settled with agreements
in court in 1999?
- How many judicial claims were settled
in 1999?
As a result, 21 inquiries (25%) remained without
answer; 9 (10%) received only formal brush-offs;
55 answers (65%) contained the complete set
of information required.
The list of regions where the inquiry was
ignored by the officials includes: Altai,
Bashkortostan, Sakha (Yakutia), North Osetia-Alania,
Tatarstan, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachaevo-Cherkess
Republics; Krasnoyarsk and Stavropol Territories.
The Astrakhan, Bryansk, Magadan, Moscow, Penza,
Tver and Yaroslavl Regions, the city of Moscow
and Nenets, Khanty-Mansisk, Chukot and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts.
Formal or empty answers were sent by Khabarovsk
Territory, Volgograd, Kurgan, Leningrad, Nizhny
Novgorod, Omsk, Samara, Ulyanovsk Regions,
and also Koryak Autonomous District.
The last example is especially indicative.
The chairman of the court of Koryak Autonomous
District, Mr. Panasevich, did not wish to
provide the editorial office of Spros magazine
with the required information on the grounds
that the inquiry was not signed by the main
editor, but by his assistant. The conclusion
is as follows:
"I believe that someone has taken advantage
of the form your magazine, which I respect,
and wishes to receive judicial information
on a plausible pretext (enclosed). I do not
countenance the idea of basic disrespect."
With the exception of Agin-Buryat and Evenki
Autonomous Districts, where the above inquiry
was not sent, regions which are not included
in the above list offered the required information.
The second inquiry was addressed to the
regional chiefs of the territorial offices
of the Ministry for Anti-monopoly Policy and
Support of Business in the Russian Federation
(MAPRF). The following information was requested:
- How many claims were sent by your directorate
and how many of them were examined by the
court for features of infringement of the
legislation on the protection of consumers'
rights in 1999?
- How many of them were settled?
77 inquiries in total were sent out, of which
22 (29%) remained unanswered. Complete information
was received on the other 55 inquiries (71%),
with the exception of the response of the territorial
directorate of the MAPRF for the city of Moscow
and Moscow Region, which provided only partial
information.
The number of inquiries (77) is explained
by the structure of МАPRF, where for a number
of regions single united offices have been
created. So, single territorial offices share
the Volgograd region and the Republic of Kalmykia;
Moscow and Moscow Region; St. Petersburg and
Leningrad Region; The Tyumen and Kurgan Regions;
The Orel and Belgorod Regions; In Kurgan and
Belgorod Regions there are branches of territorial
directorates to which inquiries were also
sent. MAPRF territorial offices have not been
established in Agin-Buryat, Komi-Perm, Koryak,
Taimyr, Ust-Orda Buryat, Chukot and Evenki
Autonomous Districts.
The chiefs of MAPRF territorial offices
did not respond to the press requests in the
republics of Adygei, Bashkortostan, Buryat,
Mordovia, North Osetia-Alania, Tuva and Kabardino-Balkaria;
in Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaliningrad, Kaluga,
Kirov, Kostroma, Murmansk, Novgorod, Pskov,
Ryazan, Sakhalin, Tver, Tomsk, Chelyabinsk
and Chita regions.
The following regions answered press inquiries
in full: Karachaevo-Cherkess and Komi Republics;
Krasnodar and Khabarovsk Territories; Arkhangelsk,
Belgorod, Vladimir, Kurgan, Kursk, Lipetsk,
Magadan, Omsk, Orenburg, Orel, Perm, Saratov,
Sverdlovsk and Tambov Regions; and also the
Jewish Autonomous Region and Nenets and Khanty-Mansisk
Autonomous Districts. The answers from other
regions were unsatisfactory in their incompleteness,
and thus break the law.
The third inquiry of Novaya Gazeta was addressed
to the chiefs of the departments of judicial
offices for the registration of public and
religious associations in the federal territorial
entity. This inquiry asked a question on the
number of public organizations registered
in the region for the protection of the rights
of consumers, requesting that the information
be given in a particular way.
87 inquiries were sent out. Of these, 14
(16%) remained unanswered, and two inquiries
(2%) received formal brush-offs. Judging by
the number of answers received - 71 (82%)
- this inquiry was among the most successful.
A lack of skills of dialogue with the press
was demonstrated by judicial officials in:
Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachaevo-Cherkess, Chuvashia,
North Osetia-Alania, Khakasia, and Mari-El
Republics; Stavropol Territory; Amur, Arkhangelsk,
Lipetsk and Tomsk regions; Koryak and Taimyr
Autonomous Districts.
Bashkortostan returned the inquiry to the
paper "for appropriate registration." The
deputy editor had signed the enquiry instead
of the editor-in-chief. The same sort of excuse
was given by the officials of the Department
of Justice in the Smolensk Region.
The remaining regions, with the exception
of Ingushetia and Chechnya, where inquiries
were not sent, offered the full set of information
requested, making 39 regions (45%) which made
it in time, i.e. in complete conformity with
the law on the press. These were the Republics
of Altai, Dagestan, Kalmykia and Karelia;
Altai, Krasnodar and Primorsk Territories;
Astrakhan, Bryansk, Vladimir, Vologda, Voronezh,
Irkutsk, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kemerovo, Kostroma,
Kurgan, Magadan, Moscow, Novgorod, Novosibirsk,
Omsk, Orenburg, Penza, Perm, Pskov, Rostov,
Saratov, Sverdlovsk, Tambov and Chita Regions,
Moscow and St. Petersburg, and also Komi-Permyak
Ust-Orda Buryat, Chukot, Evenki and Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous Districts.
The Kurgan and Orel Regions led the way
in terms of the total number of answers received
from the officials of one region, where the
representatives of local authority answered
respectively 19 and 17 inquiries out of the
23 sent to them. However, the group of leaders
in terms of the total volume of information
offered is far larger: the Kaluga and Novgorod
Regions sent 10 full and timely answers; and
Ivanovo, Kamchatka and Orel regions sent nine
complete answers; and Vladimir, Irkutsk, Kurgan,
Murmansk, Penza and Saratov regions and Evenki
Autonomous District, in each of which eight
state representatives answered according to
RF law.
