8. Para. 33 [See new paragraph 56]: “It has to be recognised that part of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia resists integration”. Many researchers concluded that the main problem is that the very concept of integration is interpreted in different ways by the government and the Russian-speaking community: while the official policies stress acquisition of the Latvian language, and acceptance of the “official” version of history, citizenship legislation and language policies as the main criteria for integration, the Russian-speakers emphasise that integration is a two-way road, and advocate the need to ensure their effective participation in decision-making, and recognition of and respect to their distinct identity – in particular, by adapting the system of state government to the multicultural and multilingual nature of the Latvia’s society. In other words, the questions is whether the respect to cultural diversity and full implementation of minority rights is a part of the integration concept or not. Thus, the statement quoted above is somewhat misleading – it free foot fetish chat now would be better to stress the differences in approaches to the integration concept.

9. Para. 33 and footnote 5 [See new part 56 and footnote 8]: the footnote is very essential, indeed. However, the real picture is even more salient. It is worth mentioning that the pre-election programme of the Latvian People’s Front (LPF) in 1990 elections (when, for the last time, all residents were allowed to vote) contained a provision which for any practical reason could not be understood otherwise than “the zero option” (i.e. citizenship for everybody). This was one of the reasons why many Russian-speakers voted for the LPF then, thus ensuring its constitutional majority and the restoration of independence by parliamentary way. Thus, the non-citizens believe, and not without good reasons, that the legislators elected by them simply deprived their own electors of political rights, meanwhile keeping their mandates. Under these circumstances, the word “misunderstanding” hardly reflects the reality, and it is simply not true that “such sentiments are …without foundation”. As one of the LPF leaders, A. We chose deception” (Latvia – whose homeland? Report about the conference organized by the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Riga: Goete Institute, 1994, in Latvian).

10. Para. 34 [See new paragraphs 53 and 54]: 42% is the figure for those ethnic Russians who were registered as citizens since they could trace their roots back to the citizens of the pre-war Latvia, not the number of those arrived after WW2.

Brand new profile 6000 towards the Russian-speaking relationships seems greatly overestimated, usually 2 right until 4 numerous her or him formally inserted (and some dozens extremely working) was said

11. Para. 35 [See new part 60]: “Everyone agreed that the cultural rights of the minorities were respected. The NGOs also agreed that legislation complied with the minimum recommendations made by international organisations (the OSCE and the Council of Europe)”.

Panteleevs, advised from inside the 1994: “We had an alternative – sometimes so you can deceive [brand new Russian-speakers], or perhaps to capture

The newest statement tunes sometime uncommon – what exactly is suggested since “cultural legal rights”? Is the straight to knowledge into the mom language, or even the directly to fool around with fraction code before personal government incorporated? And you can what are such “minimum information”? Such, each other OSCE together with Council out-of European countries for years required so you’re able to grant the voting legal rights during the municipal elections for low-owners, and this refers to clearly perhaps not then followed.

Off specific NGO agencies whom participated in the conferences that have the fresh new rapporteur, We read different form of what they told you. I am scared the paragraph will be contested in Latvia toward purely factual basis, and therefore credibility of entire report could well be requested.