Commentary of the SOVA Center on the letter in defense of the RCFS

On January 22, 2007, on the eve of the consideration of the cassation in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of the liquidation of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, a group of human rights activists issued a statement in defense of the RCFS and freedom of association in general.

Representatives of the SOVA Center added their signatures to the letter in defense of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society , but consider it necessary to add their comments.

We fully share the pathos of the letter, which is why we signed it, but we are also aware of the seriousness of the legal collision facing the Supreme Court. The main claim against the RCFS is related to the sentence of its leader Stanislav Dmitrievsky, who was wrongfully convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code. According to the laws on public associations and on countering extremist activities, the RCFS should, accordingly, remove Dmitrievsky from its founders and governing bodies and publicly dissociate himself from his actions, recognized as extremist in the framework of his criminal case.

We have said more than once that such strict requirements for an organization can be, in principle, justified if we are talking about really serious crimes of its leader. Apparently, many understand the relevant anti-extremist norms of legislation in this way, associating the term "extremism" precisely with serious crimes, somewhat close to terrorism. However, the real definition of "extremism" in the law is by no means that - it is unusually broad and vague, which creates the possibility of severe prosecution for minor flaws and, in our opinion, even for actions that are fully acceptable.

Undoubtedly, the rule about the need for an organization to disassociate itself from the "extremism" of its leaders is applied very, very selectively. Actually, apart from the RCFS case, we know only one case of its use: in late 2002, the ultra-nationalist National Power Party of Russia was ordered to dissociate itself from the harsh anti-Semitic statements of one of its then co-chairs, Boris Mironov (recently arrested in the case under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code), and the leadership of the NDPR did this and got off with a warning (the NDPR was liquidated later and not at all "for extremism", but due to the lack of regional organizations, according to the legislation on parties).

The Supreme Court cannot make a decision contrary to the current legislation that created such a situation, nor can it review the unlawful sentence to Dmitrievsky, which has already entered into force, which formed the basis of the current case. Therefore, it is useless to demand from the Supreme Court not to liquidate the RCFS just because it is forced to do the same thing that the PDPR was forced to do (and then, I remember, no one outside the nationalist camp objected).

But the case itself gives reason to think about the quality of anti-extremist legislation. The Supreme Court could apply to the Constitutional Court with a proposal to assess the constitutionality of the repressive structure created by the relevant legislation.

As for the actual case on the liquidation of the RCFS, it is enough for the Supreme Court to recognize as unlawful not all, but at least part of the grounds on which the Society was liquidated by the Nizhny Novgorod justice. And there are illegal grounds in this case, although they are not related to the main, anti-extremist, motive.