Misuse of Anti-Extremism in February 2014

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events relating to misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in February 2014.

Law-making

On February 3, the president signed into law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (with regard to increasing liability for extremist action)”. The law toughens punishments for article 280 (calls for extremist action), 282 (incitement of hatred and enmity), 282.1 (participation in an extremist association) and 282.2 (continuation of activities for an organization, banned for extremism) of the Criminal Code. Under all articles the amount of fines were increased and the terms of forced labor extended; under three of them, excepting 282, the upper threshold of imprisonment was also raised. Prior to the law’s enforcement, crimes stipulated by part 1 of article 280, part 2 of article 282.1, and article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (CC) were considered minor offenses. Now they have been transferred to the category of major and mid-level offenses – with corresponding consequences. The main problem of the new law is the raising of the upper threshold of length of imprisonment – a measure that by no means follows the needs of anti-extremist laws application.

Criminal prosecution

At the end of January and beginning of February, we learned that a trial had begun under parts 1 and 2 of article 282.2 CC (organization of activities for an extremist organization and participation in such) in connection with Andrey Dedkov’s detention in Krasnoyarsk on suspicion of organizing activities for the banned religious association “Nurcular”. According to the investigative committee, since September 2012 Dedkov has been organizing a “Nurcular” cell in Krasnoyarsk and “recruiting citizens for participation in the extremist association and distribution of literature banned by court order”. The investigation reported that during searches 497 books had been seized, 142 of which had been banned, and it also reported that ten people had been detained, two of whom had been released on restricted-residence order. Andrey Dedkov had been one of those accused in the court case under the same article that opened in 2010 and was closed in 2012 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Additionally, a court case under part 2, article 282.2 was opened in connection with the “leader of the youth wing of the ‘Nurcular’ cell” Magomed Suleiman-ogly, a native of Azerbaijan. From our point of view, the association “Nurcular” has never existed in Russia though it is banned as an extremist organization. In Russia, Muslims who study the wrongfully banned books of Said Nursi are confronted with unjustified persecution from law enforcement agencies. It is worth noting as well that Krasnoyarsk’s Muslims actively and consistently contest the bans on the Turkish theologian’s books.

In mid February we learned about the trial of opposition society activist Musa Abadiev continuing in the Magas regional court of the Republic of Ingushetia. Abadiev is accused under part 1, article 282 CC (actions, intended to incite hate or enmity, or degradation of those belonging to a different social group). Abadiev is imputed by one of his blog posts published in early 2013, in which he allegedly wrote “incorrect statements, meant to incite hatred or enmity in relation to a specific social group of persons”. It is possible to access Abadiev’s incriminating record in “Zhivoi Zhurnal” in its crossed-out form. From our point of view, the text does not contain any signs of the crimes, stipulated under article 282 of the Criminal Code. It contains somewhat intolerant claims directed at the moral integrity of Russian “patriots”, calls to the Russian people to accept Islam, as well as invective addressed to Vladimir Putin. The social group of “government officials” is not in any way contained in the text. In fact, government officials should not even be considered a social group in need of protection provided by anti-extremist laws. According to the ruling of the Russian Federation’s Supreme Court on July 28, 2011, “criticism in the media of officials (professional politicians), their actions and convictions should not of itself be considered in any case as an action, meant to degrade persons or a group of persons, since the range of accepted criticism for officials is broader than for private persons”.

In early February in Moscow Alexander Sokolov, a graduate student at the Central Economic and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences was subject to a search and interrogation. According to Sokolov, the search (marked by violations) was conducted within a court investigation under part 1 article 282 CC against an activist of the group “For Responsible Authority” (FRA) named Kiril Barabash, who himself is a witness in the case. The case was initiated for posting a video online with a speech by Barabash. The student maintains that he had nothing to do with the video. According to Sokolov’s story, an employee of Center “E” told him that the reason for his investigation was publication of the costs of the Olympic Games which he included in his dissertation defended in October 2013. Earlier Sokolov had published a study on rising prices during Olympic construction. The study received a wide response, at home as well as abroad.

Several criminal cases related to terrorism occurred in February, which actually are more closely related to the sphere of anti-extremist legislation.

In Barnaul a criminal case under part 2, article 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public appeals to engage in terrorist activities, made by using mass media) was initiated against Barnaul activist Dmitri Bychkov of “The Other Russia”. According to Bychkov, the investigation holds that he intentionally propagandized terrorist activity through the republication of a pic with a gun cartridge from the webpage of Petersburg nationalist Maksim Kalinichenko and setting a “Like” button under the photo on his own page in the social network site “VKontakte” in August 2013. Aside from the fact that such actions can hardly be perceived as terrorist propaganda, we should note that a social networking site is not considered mass media. In 2010 Bychkov received a conditional sentence under part 2, article 282.2 (participation in the activities of a banned organization) and part 1, article 222 of the Criminal Code (unlawful purchase, possession and carrying of explosive devices) for distributing pamphlets and possession of a grenade.

In mid-February in Mari El, a criminal investigation was renewed under part 1, article 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public appeals to engage in terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism) in connection with Andrei Svistunov, a trade union activist, leader of the “Tenth of December Movement” and coordinator of the “Left Front” from Yoshkar-Ola. In 2012 Mari El’s Investigative Committee prosecuted Svistunov under part 2 article 205.2 CC (justification of terrorism through use of mass media) and article 282 (incitement of hatred and enmity). According to the investigation, he posted to the social networking site “VKontakte” “text messages addressed to the general public advocating terrorism. The text messages express dissatisfaction with the existing mode of government and justification for overthrowing it by violent means”. In October 2013 the case under article 205.2 was canceled on lack of evidence, and in January 2014 under article 282. In agreement with the decision to cancel the case under article 282, Svistunov was suspected of “distribution of statements inciting social discord, directed against the political party “United Russia”, as well as its members and electorate”, as well as statements directed at inciting hatred toward the following social groups: “the current government of the Russian Federation”, “United Russia”, “police forces” and “bourgeois”. However, experts have not found in Svistunov’s texts any justification for terrorist activities. Rather, they found “negative appraisals” of United Russia and President Putin. They also pointed out that the aforementioned social groups cannot be considered such. Nevertheless, in mid-January the republic prosecutor’s office revoked the decision to cancel the court case under article 205.2 and, additionally, determined that there were signs of violations under part 1 article 280 in the activist’s statements. Svistunov believes that the prosecution is politically motivated, so as to prevent the creation of a branch of the Russian United Labor Front in the republic, as he himself is involved in its formulation there.

At the end of February a criminal case was announced in relation to five residents of the Bashkir city of Dyurtyuli, who are suspected of participating in the activities of “Hizb ut-Tahrir”. According to preliminary data, a case was initiated against five individuals under article 205.5 of the Criminal Code (organizing activities for a terrorist organization and participation in such), entering into force at the end of 2013. This is the first instance, known to us, of the use of this particular article of the Criminal Code. Article 205.5 provides for much more severe penalties than article 282.2 (organizing activities for an extremist organization), under which the members of “Hizb ut-Tahrir” have generally been implicated until now. We believe that this organization was recognized as a terrorist organization by the Russian Federation’s Supreme Court without proper evidence of its involvement with terrorist activities, and therefore the prosecution of its members as terrorists is unlawful. We propose that the Supreme Court should instead seriously reconsider its arguments in favor of banning the organization as extremist.

Administrative prosecution

In February, the prosecutor’s office of Samara initiated a court case under article 20.29 of Russia’s Code for Administrative Offenses (CAO) (distribution of extremist materials) in relation to one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses communities. The Witnesses are suspected of distributing literature during their prayer meetings. We consider the prosecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the banning of their texts as extremist to be unlawful and we consider it religious discrimination.

The magistrate court of the Pervomaisky judicial section of Syktyvkar found the owner of the Syktyvkar computer club “Saigon” guilty under part 2 article 6.17 CAO (violation of the Russian Federation’s legislation on protecting children from information that may cause harm to their health and/or development), and gave her a 5,000 ruble fine. The Syktyvkar prosecutor’s office established in the case proceedings that the club allowed access to banned sites, including those containing extremist materials. However, the prosecutor’s office did not indicate the absence of content filters at the computer establishment. Computer clubs are generally not considered establishments for children; adult users visit them, and content filtration restricts their legal rights. Additionally, we repeat, that content-filtration programs, as a rule, are ineffective and do not provide full restriction of access to banned information.

Translated by Matt McDonald, USCIRF