VZCZCXRO9177
OO RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHRA #0884 3331607
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 291607Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY RIGA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4565
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS RIGA 000884 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PBTS PREL RS LG
SUBJECT: Court rules Latvia-Russia border treaty complies with 
Constitution 
 
¶1. Summary. Latvia's Constitutional Court (ST) announced November 29 
that the Latvia- Russia Border Treaty, which provides Latvia's 
acknowledgment to the transfer of the Abrene region of Latvia to 
Russia in Stalin's era, complies with the Constitution of Latvia. 
The court ruled that the Treaty itself does not breech the 
Constitution, thus removing any legal barriers for exchange of 
instruments of ratification between the two countries. End summary. 
 
¶2. The text of the border treaty was agreed in 1997 but political 
tensions left it dormant for ten years.  It was signed in Moscow on 
March 27.  In May, Latvia ratified the agreement. The main 
opposition party New Era (JL) and several dissident MPs from the 
ruling coalition objected to the agreement and asked the 
Constitutional Court to evaluate whether the Treaty complies with 
the Constitution. The agreement recognizes that Abrene is part of 
Russia.  Abrene was part of pre-WWII Latvia's territory and was 
moved by Stalin from the Latvian SSR to the Russian SSR at the 
request of the residents in the 1940's.  Opponents of the treaty 
argued that the Constitution specified Latvia's territory as being 
four regions and its borders defined by international agreements, 
which they argued was retrospective, and meant specifically the 1920 
peace treaty between Latvia and the USSR.  Amending this part of the 
Constitution requires a referendum.  The government expressed its 
contrary view that the language was prospective and the constitution 
was written to allow the borders of Latvia to be modified by future 
international agreements.  The court ruled that the Treaty itself 
complies with the Constitution. Judge Juris Jelagins stated that 
there were no grounds for the government to call a referendum on 
transferring Abrene's region to Russia. 
 
¶4. Comment. The negative CC ruling would have placed Latvia in a 
very difficult legal situation as there would be a conflict between 
domestic and international law. The main responsibility for that 
would be on the ruling coalition since it decided to proceed with 
the Treaty even while waiting for the ruling by the Constitutional 
Court. The ruling removes all remaining legal barriers to resolve 
Latvia's long-running border issue with Russia. While this is an 
important step in Latvia - Russia relations, it will not bring about 
any immediate, significant changes in the overall relations between 
the two countries. 
 
Bailey