Misuse of Anti-Extremism in April 2016

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in April 2016. Lawmaking

In early April, Deputy Irina Yarovaya and Senator Viktor Ozerov introduced in the State Duma two bills that propose an unprecedented increase in severity of punishment for crimes of terrorist and extremist character, as well as a series of repressive procedural innovations. The measures, proposed by Yarovaya and Ozerov, included discontinuing all forms of punishment other than imprisonment under the majority of the anti-extremist articles, introduction of penalties for involvement of others in extremist activities and for failure to report terrorist activity (including for teenagers), loss of citizenship for involvement in terrorist activities for individuals with the newly granted citizenship, and, conversely, travel restrictions for native citizens convicted under anti-terrorist and anti-extremist articles, until their criminal record clears (including five years of travel restrictions after receiving a warning about the inadmissibility of terrorism, genocide, propaganda of war, and the like). The bill also proposed treating the Internet as mass media when evaluating the alleged danger of a statement for the purpose of its classification under terrorist propaganda articles. In addition, the legislators proposed to provide criminal investigators with access to the suspect’s electronic communications for a period of three years prior to the decision, granting such an access; thus, the service operators would be required to keep all communication materials, from text to video, for three years. A more detailed information on all the proposed measures is available here; the opinion of Alexander Verkhovsky, the Director of the Sova Center, on proposed legislation can be found here.

Alexander Bastrykin, the Head of the Investigative Committee, presented his own plan of combating extremism and terrorism in April. The Kommersant-Vlast weekly magazine published an article by Bastrykin, in which he proposed the introduction in Russia of the Chinese model of censorship, along with a complete ban on the work of the foreign print and electronic media, the ban on the anonymous use of cryptocurrency, an extra-judicial procedure for adding items to the Federal List of Extremist Materials, and the introduction of punishment for incitement to extremism, “associated with the falsification of data about historical facts and events,” in particular, for denying results of the Crimean referendum, to provide for the confiscation of property in cases of extremist and terrorist crimes, and to deny public benefits for the terrorists' relatives. We reviewed Bastrykin’s initiative in greater detail here.

In general, it is worth repeating once again that the Russian law enforcement practice has not demonstrated any need for harsher measures to combat extremism, because, at this time, the prosecutors almost never ask for the maximum penalty under the relevant articles. Introduction of unnecessarily cruel punishments generally leads only to an increased tension in the society. We also believe that the fight against extremism and even terrorism can’t justify and does not require the measures that would further restrict the right to freedom of expression (already excessively curtailed in Russia) including history-related discussions, the right to information and right to privacy, freedom of religion and movement.

Criminal Prosecution

In early April, a criminal case under Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement of hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity on the basis of membership of a social group of representatives of the authorities, in particular law enforcement officials and the judiciary) was opened against journalist Olga Li, a deputy of the Kursk Regional Duma. The charges were based on the video with her speeches, published online, as well as the text of her appeal to President Putin, publicly accessible on Li’s page on the social network VKontakte. Previously, due to the fact that Lee had accused the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Kursk Lyudmila Shurina of issuing a wrongful decision, she had become the defendant in a criminal case of defamation against a judge under Part 1 of Article 298.1. These two cases were combined into one. Li’s speeches actually contain harsh criticism of foreign and domestic policy of the authorities and accusations of embezzlement and other offenses directed against certain government officers in the Kursk Region. However, from our point of view, these publications contain no dangerous incitement. We also recall that, according to the Resolution No. 11 of the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “Concerning Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Regarding Crimes of Extremism,” adopted on June 28, 2011, “the criticism in the mass media of officials (professional politicians), their actions and beliefs alone should not be considered in all cases as an action aimed at the humiliation of a person or group of persons, since the limits of acceptable criticism are wider for the indicated persons than for private individuals.” From our point of view, law enforcement authorities should be guided by this Supreme Court clarification in their assessment of the activity of Olga Li, a professional journalist.

It was reported in April that, in late March, the FSB Department of the Republic of Buryatia initiated criminal proceedings in the case under Article 280.1 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (public calls on the Internet to actions aimed at violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation) based on a number of posts on VKontakte. As a part of this criminal investigation, a search was conducted at the premises of Ulan-Ude resident Vladimir Khagdaev, who, according to the investigators, published statements with calls for actions aimed at violation of the territorial integrity of Russia, under the pseudonym “Genghis Bulgadaev” starting in September 30, 2014 and until January 16, 2015. The social network group, administered by Hagdaev, was included on the Unified Register of Banned Websites and shut down by the VKontakte administration; the Genghis Bulgadaev page was blocked under Lugovoy’s Law upon request from the Prosecutor General. According to the information, found in the social networks, Khagdaev advocated pan-Mongolism as the teaching on the cultural unity of the Mongolian peoples, and commented negatively on the implications of the incorporation of Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Territory into the Irkutsk Region, but made no separatist appeals. We were able to get acquainted with at least some of the materials published in social networks by Khagdaev. Many of them are written in the spirit of radical Buryat nationalism, and one contains a quotation, which mentions the possibility of Buryatia separating from Russia, but only hypothetically. We view prosecution for incitement to separatism – unless the statement also includes incitement to violence – as inappropriate and violating the right to freedom of speech; we found no such incitement on Khagdaev’s page.

An investigation in the case of Tatar writer Aydar Khalim, accused of inciting ethnic hatred under Part 1 of Article 282, was completed in April in Kazan. The writer was charged for making emotional statements about Russians, including references to Russian President Vladimir Putin, on October 11, 2014 during his address at the meeting dedicated to the Day of memory of the defenders of Kazan, killed in 1552. In his speech, Khalim reportedly reiterated the thesis of his own book To Kill an Empire about the “biological death” of the Russian people, and said that Russians could only be saved after “getting rid of Putin.” Apparently, even though, Khalim holds rather radical nationalist views, the above speech contained no calls for aggressive actions towards Russians, but merely expressed his opinions on the policy of the Russian authorities and on the imperial mindset.

At the end of April in Moscow, the Investigative Committee indicted media manager and blogger Anton Nossik under Part 1 of Article 282, with travel restrictions imposed as a preventive measure. A criminal case was opened in November 2015, based on Nossik’s statements made on October 1 of the same year. The statements in question include his Live Journal entry “Erase Syria from the Face of the Earth” and his speech on the air of Echo of Moscow radio station. In his LiveJournal post, Nossik called for carpet bombing of the Syrian territory to the point of complete destruction of the country’s civilian infrastructure, and praised the killing of civilians, including children, as well-deserved. On the same day, in his statement on Echo of Moscow, the blogger confirmed his support for the killing of women, children and the elderly during a military operation in Syria, because they ultimately posed a threat to Israel. We believe that Nossik’s statements contain incitement to war and claims regarding the inferiority of the Syrians, which could engender hostility toward this people. However, we question the need to prosecute the blogger, due to the fact that the social danger of his statements is insignificant – hostility toward Syrians is uncommon in the modern Russian society, and, as for Nossik’s calls to bomb the country, they are addressed to the governments, and Nossik’s opinion has no effect on their decisions.

In early April, Magomednabi Magomedov – the imam of Vostochnaya Mosque and the chairman of the imams’ city council – was arrested in Khasavyurt (Dagestan). Magomedov was charged under Part 1 of Article 205.2 (public calls to terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism) and Part 1 of Article 282 (incitement to hatred or hostility, or humiliation of human dignity) of the Criminal Code. Law enforcement agencies informed the press that “the imam is suspected of calling for terrorist activities and publicly justifying terrorism in the mosque of the Vostochny settlement of Khasavyurt on February 5. In addition, he posted on the Internet materials aimed at inciting hatred and at humiliation of human dignity on the grounds of religion or nationality.” Meanwhile, the content of Magomedov’s sermons of February 5, 2016 is well known. On that day, 8 - 15 thousand persons gathered for prayer in Vostochnaya mosque in the presence of the law enforcement. The sermon was dedicated to the shutting down of Dagestan’s Salafi mosques. According to the believers, the imam talked about the unacceptability of further pressure against the Salafis by the security forces, and urged the members of the community to stay united and seek protection of their rights by peaceful means. According to the Human Rights Center “Memorial,” “Magomedov, the leader of a moderate Salafi community in Khasavyurt, consistently and publicly spoke out against violence, against departure of young Muslims “into the woods” or to the Middle East. Doing this, he actually helped to save people’s lives.” “Memorial” called on the authorities of Dagestan “to do everything possible in order to prevent the fabrication of a new criminal case against the person, whose work helps in defusing the situation in the republic.”

In mid-April, another newly opened case under Articles 282 and 205.5 of the Criminal Code (organizing activities of an organization, recognized as a terrorist, or participating in it) was reported in Nizhnevartovsk. Three local residents have been accused of collaboration with Hizb ut-Tahrir. According to the investigators, they recruited new members and disseminated (on VKontakte, among other venues) materials of this organization, “aimed at creating the negative, hostile, and antagonistic attitude toward the work of law enforcement agencies, followers of Christianity and the Christian religion in general.” In our opinion, the law enforcement officers do not belong among the vulnerable groups that require protection in the form of anti-extremist legislation, and promotion of the negative attitude toward Christianity cannot be interpreted as incitement to hatred, unless accompanied by calls for aggression. In addition, we view the accusations of terrorism against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers, made merely on the basis of their involvement in the party (holding meetings, reading the literature, etc.), as inappropriate.

Refat Alimov and Arsen Dzhepparov spent two months under arrest on suspicion of their Hizb ut-Tahrir involvement (Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code) in the village of Krasnokamenka (Kyzyltash) in Big Yalta (Crimea) in mid-April.

In mid-April, the Kirovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg referred “Voodoo Master” Anton Simakov for compulsory mental health treatment. We would like to remind that the criminal case against Simakov under Article 148 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public actions, expressing clear disrespect for the society and committed in order to insult the religious feelings of believers) was opened in relation to a ceremony he performed in his office in October 2014. The purpose of the ritual, according to Simakov, was to exert magical influence on the Ukrainian authorities. It involved the following objects: a clay voodoo doll, blood of a sacrificial animal, a funeral pall, а band usually put on the heads of the dead in churches, a printed copy of the prayer traditionally read during church funeral services, and a small wooden cross. We believe that the actions, committed by Simakov, should not be qualified as a crime under Article 148; he had no intent to insult the Christian symbols, but merely used them in accordance with his own religious beliefs.

Administrative Prosecution

In April, we recorded information about two people, who faced Administrative responsibility under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for distribution of inappropriately prohibited material or storage thereof with intent to distribute. Back in February, the Chapaevsky City Court of the Samara Region sentenced Ilgar Guseynov, the imam of the prayer house Mirmamed’s Mosque to a fine of three thousand rubles. The Sernursky District Court of the Republic of Mari El levied a fine of one and a half thousand rubles against Dinis Khakimov, a resident of Paranga village. Both cases were based on the VKontakte publications of the banned film Miracles of the Koran. We found no incitement to violence, incitement to hatred or hate speech in this, more than two-hour-long, historical and educational video, and believe that it has been recognized as extremist inappropriately.

According to our data, three men were wrongfully prosecuted in April under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code for the display of Nazi symbols with no propaganda intent. LGBT activist Nina Solovyova from Krasnodar was sentenced to ten days of administrative arrest for publishing on social networks a video of the song “This is Ruscism, baby” by Boris Sevastyanov. The song contains harsh criticism of the Russian state propaganda and the country’s foreign policy in connection with its actions in Ukraine, typical, according to the author, for totalitarian regimes. The video does show swastikas, since it includes a number of snippets from the Third Reich newsreels. However, in this case, as in many others, the display of Nazi symbols is not aimed at promoting the Nazi ideology. Another Krasnodar activist, Darya Polyudova, had previously faced administrative arrest for the same offence. The Severodvinsk City Court levied a fine of a thousand rubles against Valery Sheptukhin, a journalist and an activist of the Other Russia party. He was accused of publishing photos and drawings of swastikas on his page on VKontakte. From our point of view, Sheptukhin was fined inappropriately, since he was using historic photographs and other images with a swastika as a polemical tool. As a supporter of the Donetsk People’s Republic, he was accusing the current Ukrainian government of fascism, and his actions should not be viewed as Nazi propaganda. The Motovilikhinsky District Court of Perm sentenced Mikhail Kasimov, the leader of the Perm branch of the Party of People's Freedom (PARNAS) to a fine of one thousand rubles. The charges stemmed from an old post on Kasimov’s social network page, in which he compared Soviet and Nazi propaganda posters. From our perspective, this publication can’t be considered propaganda of Nazism. We would like to remind that, according to the Russian electoral legislation, the citizens, penalized for committing an administrative offense under Article 20.3, cannot be elected, if the voting takes place while they are still considered subject to an administrative punishment, that is, within a year from the end of the execution of the decision on administrative punishment. Kasimov views this case as related to the authorities ‘desire to preclude his participation in the September elections to the Regional Legislative Assembly and to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The activist intends to contest his fine.

In April, we learned of two cases of a fine imposed under Article 6.17 of the Administrative Code for violation of the rules for dissemination of information products among children. A magistrate Court in the Chelyabinsk Region fined the director of the Tikhonov Secondary School in Uyskoe five thousand rubles, finding her guilty of an offense under Article 6.17 Part 1. The administrative case was initiated based on the results of a joint inspection by the Uyskoe District Prosecutor’s Office and the regional department of the FSB, which had shown that extremist materials could be accessed from school computers. We believe that content filtering software is not effective, and the school personnel should not be held accountable for it. The Crème Brûlée café in Angarsk of the Irkutsk Region was fined 20 thousand rubles. The cafe was found guilty of providing Wi-Fi without installing a content filtration system. After the intervention of the prosecutor's office, café no longer provides its visitors with access to the Internet. We oppose the prosecution of administrators of cafes, Internet cafes, hotels, etc. for lack of content filtering, since these spaces are intended not only for children (supervised by their parents), but also for adult users, whose rights should not be curtailed.

Banning Organizations as Extremist

On April 26, 2016, the Supreme Court recognized the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People as an extremist organization and banned its activities. The decision has not yet entered into force and may be appealed in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation within a month, and the lawyer for the Mejlis is planning to utilize this option. The organization has been suspended even prior to the court decision. From our point of view, the prohibition of the Mejlis lacks due legal justification, based on the overall activity of the organization; the ban is dictated by political motives. Prosecutorial claims pertain primarily to the Mejlis members that do not currently reside in Crimea. The only actual charge against the Crimean leadership of the Mejlis relates to the altercations with border guards in May 2014 during Mustafa Dzhemilev’s attempt to enter Crimea. Since then, that is, for the past two years, the Crimean Mejlis members undertook no actions connected to violence. In other words, the reasons for claims against the Mejlis are not entirely absent, but they clearly do not require measures as extreme as banning the organization – the step that can have very serious consequences.

In our view, this decision is not only legally inappropriate but also politically reckless, due to its potential to cause an aggravation of interethnic relations on the peninsula. The European Union, the Council of Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, the United States and other countries called for the repeal of the decision to ban the Mejlis. In particular, the chairman of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland said, “Imposing the ban on its activities on the basis of extremism is an extremely harsh repressive measure directed against the entire Crimean Tatar community. I urge the Russian authorities to take all possible measures to reconsider this decision.” The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had also previously recommended that the Crimean authorities withdraw the lawsuit to ban the Mejlis and stop persecuting members of this organization.

In late April, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court began its consideration of the claim, filed by the Arkhangelsk Regional Prosecutor's office, demanding liquidation of the local branch of the Tsentralnaya [Central] Jehovah's Witnesses organization as extremist. The community has been accused of disseminating banned brochures. Earlier, the organization had received a warning about impermissibility of extremist activity and never succeeded in appealing it. Notably, the head of the community, who had been fined for distribution of the banned literature, was the one to submit an application for liquidation of his organization to the Ministry of Justice in October 2015.

In addition, warning about the impermissibility of extremist activity were made in April to Jehovah's Witnesses communities in the town of Polyarny (the Murmansk Region) and in Stavropol. In mid-April, the parent organization – the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia – received a warning as well. As reported by the religious organization, the warning characterized its activities as extremist and ordered it to address all the identified violations within two months. Thus, there is a threat of a complete ban on the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia (as of now, five communities in various Russian cities have been liquidated). We view shutting down local Jehovah's Witnesses organizations as extremist, prosecution against members of their communities and bans on their texts as religious discrimination.

​