Unlawful anti-extremism in April 2012

We publish a review of the main and most significant events in the field of misuse of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in April 2012.

Rulemaking

April 1, 2012 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a draft federal law "On amendments to Article 22.1 of the Federal Law "On State registration of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs" and articles 331 and 351.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation". Thus, a ban is introduced on work with minors for those who have committed crimes, provided for in ch. 29 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, Art. 275-284). This measure is in line established practice in relation to those brought to criminal responsibility. But, since under the articles of the Criminal Code, which are included in the possible scope of the future of the law, often hand down wrongful sentences, we fear that victims misuse of anti-extremist legislation will face more big disenfranchisement.

In mid-April, a deputy from the Communist Party Andrei Tychinin submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation a draft law on amendments to the Federal Law No. 126-FZ "On Communications". Tychinin drew attention to the fact that in In its current form, the law contains language that allows restricting access to sites without a corresponding court decision, which is contrary to the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence. The author of the bill proposed to bring the wording the law on communications in accordance with the Constitution and articles of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, regulating the procedure for the appeal of the prosecutor's office and other state bodies to the court with claims in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, an indefinite circle of persons or interests of the Russian Federation, subjects of the Russian Federation, municipal formations. According to the text of the bill, in paragraph 1 of part 3 of Art. 64 N 126-FZ "On Communications" should indicate that "restriction of access or suspension of the provision of communication services to legal entities and individuals carried out by telecom operators on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force in cases established by federal laws". April 12 2012, the bill was sent for consideration to the State Duma Committee on culture. We positively evaluate Tychinin's bill. Center "Sova" has repeatedly noted that restricting access to sites without relevant court decision, but only on the basis of a prosecutor's order unlawful and entails numerous abuses.

In the second half of April, the Ministry of Internal Affairs submitted to the Government a bill amending Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (Propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols). The bill provides for the introduction of a fine also for public demonstration of paraphernalia or symbols of extremist organizations and an increase in the amount of the fine for offenses under this article. We do not support this initiative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Recall that we are not agree with the current wording of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, since in practice public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols is often not aimed at them propaganda (a banal example is films about the war), but is persecuted along with propaganda. The poor wording of the article led to numerous cases unlawful persecution of citizens and organizations, primarily the media (see below Strygin case). If the bill is passed, such prosecution will also directed to those who, for whatever reason, deem it necessary to publish elements of attributes or symbols of prohibited organizations. Moreover, such organizations could use symbols that are used in a completely different context. To talk about a possible tightening and expansion of the article, from our point of view view, it would follow after changing its wording in such a way that public demonstration without the purpose of propaganda was not punishable.

Criminal prosecution

At the beginning of the month, a criminal case was initiated in Petrozavodsk case under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity on the basis of attitude to religion) against the chairman of the Youth Human Rights Group of Karelia Maxim Efimov for publishing the article "Karelia is tired of priests" on the IPY website. The note contains aggressive criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it does not contain calls for violence against believers. Recall that, according to the explanation of the Supreme Court, criticism religious associations in itself does not form the composition of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code.

In the middle of April in Moscow and St. Petersburg, hearings on cases initiated under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (participation in the activities of a banned organization) against activists "Other Russia" on charges of resuscitation of prohibited activities NBP. In Moscow, the case of two activists of the "Other Russia" is being considered, participants in the action to seize the reception of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008. Petersburg before the court 12 activists of the "Other Russia" were brought to justice, 9 of them are charged under that the same part 2 of article 282.2, three more - under part 1 of art. 282.2 (organization of activities extremist organization). We consider the persecution for participation unreasonable in the activities of the banned NBP, since, from our point of view, the very ban on this organization was a miscarriage of justice.

In the second half of the month, the Tagansky District Court Moscow extended the term of arrest of the defendants in the high-profile case of the group's punk action Pussy Riot at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. We do not consider it lawful to prosecute the alleged participants of the action under Part 2 of Art. 213 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - hooliganism committed by a group of persons by prior agreement on motive of religious hostility - since we do not see in this action the motive of hostility to Orthodox or Christians in general. At the end of April it became known that and the authors of the expert opinion, commissioned by the investigation, do not see actions of participants of the action signs of a criminal offense, but only signs of insulting the feelings of believers and personally insulting Patriarch Kirill, then there are administrative offenses. However, the investigation concealed the results expertise from the court, and a decision was made to extend the arrest. Meanwhile, still at the beginning of the month human rights organization Amnesty International has published an appeal to the Russian authorities calling release the detained members of the group as prisoners of conscience.

Administrative the pursuit

In the second half of the month in Saratov was sentenced to a fine for hours. 1 Article. 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols) blogger Alexander Strygin. Strygin was convicted for what he did on his Live page. magazine repost a selection of collages and demotivators, one of which represented a photograph of the leadership of the Third Reich against the backdrop of Nazi symbols, accompanied by the inscription "Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation". The verdict was passed on the basis of the publication of symbols and paraphernalia of Nazi Germany. We believe this sentence is unlawful, since the blogger clearly did not promote such way of Nazism.

Prohibition of materials for extremism

In early April, in the Kostroma region, the prosecutor's office filed a court action to recognize as extremist a leaflet distributed online, directed against police officers. Once again, the prosecutor's office is trying protect the police based on anti-extremist legislation, representing police officers as a special social group, although there are other articles.

In the middle of the month, the decision of the Pristensky District Court came into force in the Kursk region, according to which the brochure of the Witnesses Jehovah's "What happens at death" is not recognized as extremist. Court dismissed the case to ban the brochure on the grounds that in 2009 the Rostov the regional court recognized that it did not contain signs of extremism. However, the prosecutor's office of Pristen continues to seek a ban four more publications of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In the second half of April, Amur the regional court lifted the ban on the poem of the former deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Amur Nikolai Degtyarev's "Anti-People's Front". In January this poem was banned for extremism by the city court of Blagoveshchensk on the basis of examination, the authors of which claimed that the poem excites hatred for social group "political party" United Russia "". We also recall that, from our point of view, recognition of what whatever the party social group is in principle illegal, it follows and from the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on judicial practice in criminal cases on extremist crimes: the court indicated that criticism politicians in and of themselves cannot be considered incitement to hatred. The SC also pointed out that experts should not be asked questions that repeat the wording of the law.

police brutality

In early April in Ussuriysk were detained two residents of Vladivostok - leftist opposition activists Nikolai Sosnov and Viktor Potapeyko. The police confiscated them to check for "extremism" printed leaflet (200 copies) criticizing the government bill on education and a story about an alternative project about education, prepared by the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Oleg Smolin. We do not consider lawful the practice of seizing print runs. products under the pretext of checking for extremism (for such a check, it is enough several copies of the publication). Also note that the police reported the seizure of prohibited printed materials, although the leaflet was not recognized by the court extremist. Smolin directed to the Minister of the Interior, a parliamentary request demanding clarification of situation.