Misuse of Anti-Extremism Legislation in March 2011

In March 2011, all the same trends continued in the misuse and abuse of anti-extremist legislation, with at least two improper criminal, and one administrative, convictions. There were also wrongful decisions to ban a book and several films.

Criminal Prosecution

A District Magistrate’s Court in Kemerovo found two local residents guilty of public appeals for extremist activity (Part 1 of Article 280 of the Criminal Code). Both were sentenced to 8 months in a penal colony for posting leaflets entitled "Your car doesn’t belong to you." Prosecutors stated the leaflets promoted an "irreconcilably negative attitude" towards state officials, and referred to the Interior Ministry and Federal Security Service (FSB) as social groups. It has long been SOVA’s position that such groups should not be treated as such under Russian anti-extremist legislation.

On March 14, the high-profile case of Tyumen activist Andrei Kutuzov came to a close. Kutuzov was convicted of public appeals for extremist activity (again Part 1 of Article 280 of the Criminal Code) after allegedly distributing leaflets calling for violence against police. The defense had presented strong proof that evidence in the case was falsified, which the court did not consider in its decision.

Two sentences were reversed in March.

The Supreme Court of Buryatia overturned a ruling against activists Nadezhda Nizovkinaya and Tatiana Stetsura by Ulan-Ude’s Soviet District Court, and referred the case to a new trial due to violations of procedure. The defendants had been accused and convicted of incitement to social hatred against police and the military (Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code – inciting social hatred), and fined.

Moscow’s Babushkinsky District Court overturned a conviction due to a statute of limitations. The case had accused and convicted an activist from the Other Russia Party of involvement in extremist activity (Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code) after he posted flyers from the National Bolshevik Party.

We have been made aware of the initiations of three separate criminal cases making improper use of anti-extremist legislation in March, and would like to draw attention to two in particular.

In Nizhny Novgorod, a case whose scale SOVA finds troubling was initiated: 12 people were arrested and searched on charges of extremism due to participation in Nurdzhular, a banned religious organization whose ban we do not find legitimate. The charges fall under Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, involvement in an extremist organization.

In Kaliningrad, a case was filed against local publisher Boris Obraztsov, charging him with using the media to incite hatred and humiliation on a religious basis (treated under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code). Obraztsov had editorialized on the activities of religious leaders, most notably Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, in his paper Tridevyaty Region. It is SOVA’s view that though Obraztsov’s comments probably were abusive ("Religion is a combination of suckers, which it breeds, and the scum standing at the head of any religious organization"), they show no signs of incitement to hatred. The comments lack a threat to the public, the basis of any criminal charge.

Administrative prosecution

March 2011 saw the improper filing of an administrative case and an improper sentence imposed through administrative law.

In Perm, a resident was charged with production and dissemination of extremist materials (Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences) after leaving a comment with a quote from Hitler on an Internet forum years ago. It is SOVA’s position that citing Nazis, fascists, etc. as part of a greater historical or political discussion should not constitute distribution of extremist materials under the law, and that such use of the law could theoretically bring sanctions against people providing the addresses of libraries stocking historical works on such groups or individuals.

In Tver, the Central District Court upheld an earlier verdict that charged a local woman with distribution of extremist materials (Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences) after she distributed banned Jehovah’s Witnesses literature.

Extremist materials

In March we learned of a January ruling at the Miyakinsky District Court in Bashkortostan that deemed a work already considered extremist as extremist, after a request by local prosecutor Amir Akhmetov. The work was Journal of 1945: The Final Record, by Joseph Goebbels. The journal is already included in a federal ban on Nazi and Italian Fascist works, so the ruling is effectively meaningless. However, it resulted in an update to the Federal List of Extremist Materials, which included over eight hundred entries when this report went online.

Another two lawsuits were filed in March, but have not yet been considered by the courts. In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, a prosecutor has proposed a ban on a number of films about the Third Reich, some of which are historical films not containing Nazi propaganda. In Moscow, authorities want to ban an entire blog because of one sentence by a writer there; the entire blog has since been taken down.

We also learned in March that in late February Maxim Moshkov, the founder of online library lib.ru, announced that he would shut down an entire website of samizdat literature on zhurnal.lib.ru after being unable to resolve a 2009 ban on the website for publishing the works of Victor Dunaev. While courts have found Dunaev’s works to be extremist, a Cherepovets Town Court brought the ban on the entire database, which had provided readers access to about 800,000 pieces.

Lawmaking

On March 1, a Federal Law "On Police" came into effect; it had been adopted by the State Duma on January 28 and was approved by the Federal Council on February 2. Part 1, Paragraph 12, Article 13 of the law creates the potential for misuse of the law: police can now give orders to "management and officials" to curtail possibilities of lawbreaking. Formerly, such orders were treated as recommendations, but not legally binding – which they now are. The law creates a precedent with, for example, Internet service providers, who in the past had waited until receiving a court order to shut down websites containing prohibited materials; such an order is no longer necessary. Police are now able to make such orders without judicial confirmation that websites in question contain extremist content, and without a crime having been committed.