154 Tanja Penter
Problematic is, for example, that local inhabitants of the contaminated
territories only profited from the law (per definition) if they lived in settlements, which had partly been evacuated in the aftermath of the nuclear
accident during the 1950s, or in settlements where the actual radiation dose
amounted to more than 1 mZv. As we know today, by far not all contaminated settlements were evacuated during the 1950s. So those people, who
were not included into Soviet evacuation policies – among them inhabitants
of several Bashkir and Tatar villages – also had problems to enforce their
actual claims for compensation and social protection. 69 Moreover, the law
excluded all those people who had relocated to the contaminated settlements
after the enacting of the law in the 1990s.
The Russian lawyer Adis Shafikov has called for the Russian state to
fundamentally change its policy toward victims of radioactive accidents and
better recognize its responsibility toward the victims. This should include,
on the one hand, compensation for the inflicted damage and suffering and,
on the other hand, the provision of social protection for the affected population. In this context, the demand for a uniform law on the social protection of citizens who have suffered damage as a result of radioactive accidents
in the Russian Federation was raised, which equally covers the accidents at
Chernobyl, Chelyabinsk, and Semipalatinsk. Moreover, such a law is intended
to cover not only those injured directly but also the subsequent generations of
children and grandchildren. 70
Shafikov considers that only in the first phase after the end of the Soviet
Union from 1991 to 1995 did the population receive broad information on
environmental problems and health risks, while since 1994, a policy of coverup and secrecy has again dominated. 71 In no small number of cases, it is difficult for the injured parties to assert their right to compensation for damage
to their health and property, as those affected are under the burden of proof.
The letters of affected people presented at the beginning have shown this.
Persons who are not sufficiently taken into account by the law include civilian volunteers who were employed as liquidators of the accident in 1957 and
today, decades later, have problems in providing evidence of their deployment. Some of those affected could only enforce their status as liquidators of
the accident by court order. However, the practice of the courts in these cases
varies from region to region. People who resettled voluntarily and on their
own initiative and did not participate in the state evacuation measures also
encountered problems of proof. 72 Moreover, as scientists know, the extent of
damage to health caused by radioactivity and the link between radioactive
radiation and illness can often not be clearly determined, as other environmental factors might have had a negative effect as well.
Approximately 21,000 people live in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, to whom the
statutory compensation regulations apply. Of these, 15,000 are liquidators of
the 1957 accident and evacuees. About 4,000 people still live in settlements
where the average annual dose of radiation is 1 mSv or more. Russian lawyers consider it problematic that the law does not take sufficient account of
Problematic is, for example, that local inhabitants of the contaminated
territories only profited from the law (per definition) if they lived in settlements, which had partly been evacuated in the aftermath of the nuclear
accident during the 1950s, or in settlements where the actual radiation dose
amounted to more than 1 mZv. As we know today, by far not all contaminated settlements were evacuated during the 1950s. So those people, who
were not included into Soviet evacuation policies – among them inhabitants
of several Bashkir and Tatar villages – also had problems to enforce their
actual claims for compensation and social protection. 69 Moreover, the law
excluded all those people who had relocated to the contaminated settlements
after the enacting of the law in the 1990s.
The Russian lawyer Adis Shafikov has called for the Russian state to
fundamentally change its policy toward victims of radioactive accidents and
better recognize its responsibility toward the victims. This should include,
on the one hand, compensation for the inflicted damage and suffering and,
on the other hand, the provision of social protection for the affected population. In this context, the demand for a uniform law on the social protection of citizens who have suffered damage as a result of radioactive accidents
in the Russian Federation was raised, which equally covers the accidents at
Chernobyl, Chelyabinsk, and Semipalatinsk. Moreover, such a law is intended
to cover not only those injured directly but also the subsequent generations of
children and grandchildren. 70
Shafikov considers that only in the first phase after the end of the Soviet
Union from 1991 to 1995 did the population receive broad information on
environmental problems and health risks, while since 1994, a policy of coverup and secrecy has again dominated. 71 In no small number of cases, it is difficult for the injured parties to assert their right to compensation for damage
to their health and property, as those affected are under the burden of proof.
The letters of affected people presented at the beginning have shown this.
Persons who are not sufficiently taken into account by the law include civilian volunteers who were employed as liquidators of the accident in 1957 and
today, decades later, have problems in providing evidence of their deployment. Some of those affected could only enforce their status as liquidators of
the accident by court order. However, the practice of the courts in these cases
varies from region to region. People who resettled voluntarily and on their
own initiative and did not participate in the state evacuation measures also
encountered problems of proof. 72 Moreover, as scientists know, the extent of
damage to health caused by radioactivity and the link between radioactive
radiation and illness can often not be clearly determined, as other environmental factors might have had a negative effect as well.
Approximately 21,000 people live in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, to whom the
statutory compensation regulations apply. Of these, 15,000 are liquidators of
the 1957 accident and evacuees. About 4,000 people still live in settlements
where the average annual dose of radiation is 1 mSv or more. Russian lawyers consider it problematic that the law does not take sufficient account of