Opinion: Why agreement between Abkhazia’s interior ministry and Russia conflicts with Abkhaz law

The opposition in Abkhazia is demanding the immediate resignation of Interior Minister Robert Kiut. The call follows an agreement he signed with Russia’s Interior Ministry. The opposition argues that the deal violates Abkhazia’s constitution and undermines its national interests.

One provision has provoked particular outrage. It envisages sharing with the Russian side data on individuals who could “destabilise the situation in the border region”. Many suspect that the agreement would legitimise a growing trend in which Russian authorities punish Abkhaz public figures and politicians who oppose arrangements with Russia that they consider detrimental to Abkhazia.

Abkhazia-Russia police cooperation: ‘shameful incompetence’ or boost to effectiveness?

The interagency cooperation agreements published by journalist Nizfa Arshba have sparked a heated debate in Abkhazia’s public sphere.

Prominent Abkhaz public figure Akhra Bzhania has examined whether the agreement complies with Abkhaz law. He concludes that it does not.

Akhra Bzhania: “Most supporters of the agreement between Abkhazia’s Interior Ministry and Russia cite legal continuity with the provisions of the 2014 Treaty of Alliance between Russia and Abkhazia as their main argument. But can these references really be considered made in good faith?

Here is what Article 10 of the 2014 treaty says in its main provisions on cooperation between the two sides’ interior ministries:

1. Within one year of the treaty’s entry into force, the parties must establish a Joint Information and Coordination Centre for their interior affairs agencies.

2. The Joint Information and Coordination Centre for Interior Affairs Agencies is responsible for:

• organising the exchange of operationally significant information between the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia, as well as maintaining the necessary operational and forensic records;
• compiling and maintaining a specialised database on organised criminal groups whose illegal activities affect the interests of the contracting parties;
• collecting, consolidating and analysing information on efforts to combat organised crime and other serious offences;
• assisting with the international search for and extradition of people who have evaded criminal prosecution or the enforcement of a sentence;
• facilitating the implementation of necessary coordinated measures to combat serious crimes that threaten the security of the contracting parties;
• developing and submitting proposals to the contracting parties on improving the effectiveness of their cooperation.

Opinion: ‘Irakli Bzhinava’s arrest in Russia is blow to freedom in Abkhaz society’

Abkhaz lawyer Irakli Bzhinava, who holds dual citizenship, was arrested for criticising an agreement to transfer a famous state-owned holiday residence in Abkhazia to Russia.

None of these provisions, nor the treaty as a whole, states or implies that the Joint Information and Coordination Centre (JICC) may be used to “monitor and analyse the crime situation and operational environment in the Republic of Abkhazia, as well as the activities of Abkhazia’s interior affairs agencies”, as stated in Article 1 of the new agreement.

That last point is particularly absurd. Why have an entire ministry if it needs to rely on an external organisation to monitor its activities? Not to mention that Abkhazia’s Interior Ministry may have internal matters that the JICC should know nothing about.

The 2014 treaty also says nothing about the JICC, let alone specialised units of Russia’s Interior Ministry, tackling “economic crime and corruption” in Abkhazia.

Nor does it mention any Russian Interior Ministry units directly engaging in “countering the spread of criminal ideas on social media and messaging platforms”. Yet Article 4 of the new agreement between the two interior ministries explicitly includes this provision.

Incidentally, many have interpreted this clause as an attempt to monitor online spaces for dissenting views.

There is also the fact that the very definition of what constitutes “criminal” content online may differ significantly between our two countries. In Russia, for example, even this text, published on Facebook, a platform owned by Meta, is illegal.

And, of course, the 2014 treaty nowhere states that the Russian and Abkhaz interior ministries will “conduct joint operational and preventive measures in border areas” — activities that infringe on our sovereign jurisdiction. Yet Article 6 of the new agreement explicitly provides for them.

And so it goes with many other provisions…

International treaties are not folk songs from which you can create a new work by developing the main theme. They are complete legal documents, and their provisions cannot be freely reinterpreted.

For this reason, and because the two instruments differ substantially in their content, the new agreement cannot be said to “derive” from the 2014 treaty, as some “experts” are trying to argue. If anyone really wants to establish a new legal framework for the work of Abkhazia’s Interior Ministry, they should try doing so openly and through the lawful procedure. Then we can see how that works out.

The terminology, place names and views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this website.