On May 6, 2009, a draft federal law "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (on the establishment of criminal liability for infringement on historical memory in relation to events that took place during the Second World War)" was submitted to the State Duma. The project was submitted by a group of deputies, including Boris Gryzlov and Pavel Krasheninnikov.
Legislators propose to introduce Art. 354.1 - "Rehabilitation of Nazism" with the following wording:
Distortion of the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, or judgments of national courts or tribunals based on the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, committed with the aim of full or partial rehabilitation of Nazism and Nazi criminals, or declaring criminal actions of the countries participating in the anti-Hitler coalition, as well as approval, denial of Nazi crimes against peace and the security of mankind, committed publicly.
The article provides for punishment in the form of a fine of up to 300,000 rubles or imprisonment for up to 3 years, and in case of use of official position or the media - a fine of up to 500,000 rubles or imprisonment for up to 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years.
The very idea of such a law seems to us worthy of discussion, since it could potentially interfere with scientific research (see Alexander Verkhovsky's commentary on the previous version of the bill).
But the present text of the bill does not specify the term "full or partial rehabilitation of Nazism" in any way, which will lead to its arbitrary interpretation. In addition, the authors of the law actually equated to the rehabilitation of Nazism the declaration of criminality of any actions of the countries participating in the anti-Hitler coalition. Thus, a historian (if he also manages, for example, a department at a university) can sit down for five years for a monograph on the behavior of Soviet soldiers in Germany or on the execution of Polish officers in Katyn. For these reasons, the current wording of the bill seems unacceptable to us.
On May 12, 2009, the State Duma Council decided to prepare the draft for consideration at the spring 2009 session.
On March 23, 2010, the State Duma Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Procedural Legislation proposed to change the text of the bill for the first reading. And on January 12, 2012, the Duma Council again appointed the Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Procedural Legislation as the responsible committee.
Sources