8. Para. 33 [See new section 56]: “It has to be recognised that part of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia resists integration”. Many researchers concluded that the main problem is that the very concept of integration is interpreted in different ways by the government and the Russian-speaking community: while the official policies stress acquisition of the Latvian language, and acceptance of the “official” version of history, citizenship legislation and language policies as the main criteria for integration, the Russian-speakers emphasise that integration is a two-way road, and advocate the need to ensure their effective participation in decision-making, and recognition of and respect to their distinct identity – in particular, by adapting the system of state government to the multicultural and multilingual nature of the Latvia’s society. In other words, the questions is whether the respect to cultural diversity and full implementation of minority rights is a part of the integration concept or not. Thus, the statement quoted above is somewhat misleading – it would be better to stress the differences in approaches to the integration concept.
9. Para. 33 and footnote 5 [See new paragraph 56 and footnote 8]: the footnote is very essential, indeed. However, the real picture is even more salient. It is worth mentioning that the pre-election programme of the Latvian People’s Front (LPF) in 1990 elections (when, for the last time, all residents were allowed to vote) contained a provision which for any practical reason could not be understood otherwise than “the zero option” (i.e. citizenship for everybody). This was one of the reasons why many Russian-speakers voted for the LPF then, thus ensuring its constitutional majority and the restoration of independence by parliamentary way. Thus, the non-citizens believe, and not without good reasons, that the legislators elected by them simply deprived their own electors of political rights, meanwhile keeping their mandates. Under these circumstances, the word “misunderstanding” hardly reflects the reality, and it is simply not true that “such sentiments are …without foundation”. As one of the LPF leaders, A. We chose deception” (Latvia – whose homeland? Report about the conference organized by the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Riga: Goete Institute, 1994, in Latvian).
10. Para. 34 [See new paragraphs 53 and you may 54]: 42% is the figure for those ethnic Russians who were registered as citizens since they could trace their roots back to the citizens of the pre-war Latvia, not the number of those arrived after WW2.
New shape 6000 on Russian-talking connectivity looks heavily overestimated, usually 2 right up until cuatro hundreds of her or him officially registered (and some dozens really doing work) is stated
11. Para. 35 [See new part sixty]: “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 New York City escort service (the OSCE and the Council of Europe)”.
Panteleevs, told within the 1994: “We had an option – often to hack [the new Russian-speakers], or even to capture
The brand new statement music a little while unusual – what is intended given that “social legal rights”? Is the directly to training in the mommy language, or perhaps the directly to use fraction words just before personal authorities included? And what are these “minimum pointers”? Like, both OSCE therefore the Council away from European countries for many years required to give the brand new voting liberties from the municipal elections for non-citizens, referring to clearly perhaps not then followed.
Of some NGO agents which participated in this new meetings that have the fresh new rapporteur, I heard different style of whatever they said. I am scared that the paragraph is competitive in Latvia into the purely factual foundation, and thus dependability of entire statement could be expected.