Renewed Hope for Dialogue: UN Rapporteur Stands Firm Amid Rights Abuses in Russia

Since Mariana Katzarova took on the role of UN special rapporteur on human rights in Russia in 2023, the Russian government has consistently declined to collaborate with her or permit her entry into the country.

In an interview with The Moscow Times, Katzarova expressed that her research reveals a calculated approach to oppression and control in Russia—derived from the accounts of victims and witnesses—where the legal system is manipulated to punish anti-war sentiments and stifle civil society.

“In Russia, a systematic, government-backed framework for human rights abuses has emerged, legitimized through newly enacted or revised laws designed to silence civil society, dissenting opinions, and political opposition,” Katzarova noted in her latest report to the UN.

“A climate of complete impunity has been fostered, with a notable absence of independent institutions to uphold the rule of law and guarantee access to justice,” she added.

An expert in international human rights and a former journalist, Katzarova spent a decade leading Amnesty International’s investigations into human rights in Russia and during the Chechen wars.

From 2014 to 2016, during the initial phases of the armed conflict in Ukraine, Katzarova directed the UN’s Human Rights Monitoring Mission in the Donbas from her post in eastern Ukraine.

The Moscow Times inquired about the extent of her responsibilities and her perspective on the human rights situation in Russia.

This interview has been trimmed for conciseness and clarity.

The Moscow Times: Can you describe the scope of your responsibilities and the specific actions you are authorized to undertake in this position?

Mariana Katzarova: It’s crucial to recognize that my United Nations mandate is quite exceptional. The UN operates on multiple levels: it functions as a humanitarian organization, it comprises member states, and it utilizes various human rights mechanisms. I am one of those mechanisms. As a special rapporteur, I act as an independent expert, and I am not accountable for what the entire UN can or cannot do—there are distinct bodies within the UN framework.

I have been given the mandate concerning Russia, tasked with reporting on the human rights conditions there. I adhere to a resolution adopted by member states and operate independently from any influence by governments or NGOs. My reports are generated from my own observations as well as firsthand evidence and testimonies from victims and witnesses of human rights violations, or from their legal representatives.

Despite many requests, the Russian authorities have not permitted me to visit their country. It is essential that every special rapporteur has the ability to assess the state they are monitoring firsthand.

In July 2023, the [Russian UN representative] in Geneva stated during an interview with [state-run TV channel] Rossia 24: “We do not intend to acknowledge the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Russia… We cannot be subject to oversight, nor will we engage with this mandate-holder, as she is an active Russophobe.” A journalist even questioned, “What kind of Russophobe is she? She’s Bulgarian, she speaks Russian, and she has never disparaged Russia or its people.” I frequently reference this, as it represents my only indirect interaction with Russian officials. Following this, they sent a message to all UN special rapporteurs, declaring their non-recognition of my mandate and warning that they would not respond to any communications or public statements involving me.

I see my role—as well as the function of these mechanisms in general—as advisory in nature: providing guidance to governments and legal systems to enhance the protection of human rights for their citizens. In my case, that pertains to Russia. Sadly, my offers for collaboration have not been accepted.

Regarding specific actions—I’ve been in this role for two years now. I am required to submit reports: one annually to the Human Rights Council in Geneva and another to the General Assembly in New York. In these reports, I summarize legal developments and document instances of human rights abuses.

MT: How do you assess the current status of human rights law in Russia?

MK: In my reports, I relay observations based on the experiences of victims, witnesses, their families, and attorneys. I receive correspondence regarding various cases. My assessment reveals an intentional strategy of repression and control, aimed at diminishing civil society and independent media. This strategy has intensified significantly since the onset of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Any indication of anti-war sentiment faces harsh retaliation. This includes journalists and human rights advocates, as well as retirees, poets, medical professionals, and even minors. Some young people have been charged with treason or violations of national security laws merely for sharing anti-war opinions. The entire judicial system is being exploited as a mechanism for repression and punishment directed at any discord regarding the war. These issues are thoroughly documented in my reports, alongside recommendations urging the Russian government to meet its international legal obligations and commitments under UN conventions.

I maintain ongoing communication with victims of human rights violations in Russia: individuals who have faced torture, imprisonment for anti-war views, members of the LGBT community—designated as “extremist”—as well as Indigenous people and national minorities. As you are likely aware, numerous minority and Indigenous organizations have been classified as terrorist entities.

MT: You noted that Russian officials refuse to communicate with you. Do you believe dialogue is still an option?

MK: I am of the opinion that there is always an opportunity for dialogue—which is why I have faith in the United Nations. How can we hope for sustainable peace following a conflict, such as the war against Ukraine, without engaging in conversation? This is particularly a responsibility for any UN member state—especially Russia, which holds a significant position as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

With such a critical role in this international body, it is essential to adhere to the regulations, conventions, and legal instruments that Russia has ratified and signed.

My initial report to the General Assembly focused on the use of torture in Russia as a method of domestic repression and international aggression. This encompasses not only Russian anti-war activists but also groups targeted for their identities, such as LGBT individuals and religious minorities, as well as Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war detained in Russia.

Thousands of Ukrainian detainees remain held incommunicado, often subjected to torture or enduring conditions tantamount to torture. The UN Convention against Torture explicitly prohibits torture in all circumstances, and Russia is a signatory to that convention. I have made extensive recommendations to the Russian government on how to eradicate torture practices—but nothing is changing. In fact, the use of torture seems to be encouraged.

Following the terrorist incident at Crocus City Hall in Moscow [in 2024], for the first time, Russian authorities allowed torture to be aired on national television. One suspect was shown with an ear severed, and another received electric shocks to the genitals. It was even broadcast how these suspects were brought to court in a severely beaten state, with the judge neglecting to inquire about their condition. In any standard court, such a situation would prompt an investigation. The public endorsement of torture via national media is one of the most troubling trends we have observed in Russia. Previously, these acts were conducted in secrecy; now they are starkly visible, with some television commentators claiming it is insufficient.

Where is the presumption of innocence? What has happened to the principles of the rule of law? What about judicial independence? All these elements form part of a repressive system, and it is deeply concerning.

You asked if dialogue is feasible—I am open to it. I welcome discussions. Dialogue with the judiciary, the ombudsperson, the prosecutor general, and the Ministries of the Interior and Defense. There is much to discuss if there is any hope for justice for the Russian populace.