Misuse of Anti-Extremism in January 2013

The following is our monthly review of the primary and most representative cases of the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremism legislation for January 2013. Lawmaking

Towards the end of January the Russian government negatively reviewed the official bill “On Amendments to the Criminal Code and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to counter insults to citizens’ religious feelings, the desecration of objects and subjects of religious worship, places of worship and ceremonies,” better known as the “blasphemy law.” The response stated that the Criminal Code’s existing articles on hooliganism and vandalism are sufficient to punish the desecration of religious sites and that it is only possible to supplement the law's qualifying elements and the severity of punishment for such offenses. The government also drew MPs’ attention to the fact that the bill contained concepts that are totally undefined in Russian legislation. It’s conceivable that public debate on the bill influenced the government’s position, including a negative opinion put forth by the executive branch’s Council on Human Rights and Civil Society (the council is currently finishing discussions on its own proposals in this area).

On January 29, 2013, the Ministry of Justice’s website published amendments to the law “On non-profit organizations.” The update will extend to all NGOs the unscheduled inspection procedures initially meant to apply only to non-profits registered as “foreign agents.” These will involve spot checks based on appeals or submissions from private or justice-related individuals regarding signs of extremism at a given non-profit. We note that such spot checks do not provide tangible results, as the seizure of paperwork and other spot check activities are hardly enough to identify “facts of extremism,” as the law puts it, and only complicate the work of organizations that have nothing to do with extremism.

At the end of January we became aware of an experiment to regulate Internet access to be conducted between February and April of this year in the Kostroma region. At the end of January we became aware of a planned experiment to regulate Internet access, to be conducted between February and April of this year in the Kostroma region. If implemented it would be run by the League for a Safer Internet (LBI) in conjunction with local service providers. This would involve having residents sign service contracts giving users default access only to websites contained on the LBI’s “white list,” which includes about 500,000 sites. As such users would only be able to access the open Internet by filing an application with the service provider. The implementation of such a project would unequivocally mean the introduction of severe and unprecedented online censorship in a Russian region. However, Minister of Communications Nikolai Nikiforov said the LBI’s initiative has not been coordinated with his agency, which does not support the idea. Nikiforov noted that “in our country there is a single and indivisible informational space,” which is monitored by Rozkomnadzor. “If operators impose restrictions that are not covered by the law,” he said, “they violate the rights of their subscribers.”

In mid-January, the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly passed in the first reading a bill that would allow the government to order the examination of “information products,” which typically refers to everything from print materials to audio and video recordings, to computer software and games, which had been introduced by deputy Vitaly Milonov. According to the bill, the city government would be entitled to contract expert opinions on products distributed within St. Petersburg at the request of the Legislative Assembly, the Office of the Ombudsman for Children or on its own initiative. Such expert analyses would apparently be transferred to city police. Milonov claims that the bill is aimed primarily at fighting “non-traditional religions” – those being the Church of Scientology and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Aside from the obviously unconstitutional fight against a given religious sect, such measures would simply constitute an unjustifiable waste of city funds, as the authorities responsible for the control of such information already exist in excess.

Civil prosecution

In an unusual adherence to legal principles, the Yurga city court of the Kemerovo region rejected prosecutors’ claims against a local Jehovah’s Witnesses chapter. The prosecutor had argued that the group’s activities are, among other things, “directed against the security of the state; incite social, racial and religious hatred and hostility to our way of life and the culture of the people; and undermine the national security of the Russian Federation.” On December 27, 2012 (we became aware of it in January), the court rejected the prosecutor’s claims, as there was no proof of hate speech or the distribution of prohibited materials. The court noted an opinion from an Ombudsman on Human Rights’ case and referred to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that "criticism of political institutions, ideological and religious groups, political, ideological or religious beliefs, national or religious practice should not in itself be regarded as action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity." The prosecutor's office intends to appeal the decision.

Criminal prosecution

The persecution by way of criminal prosecution for participation in organizations banned as extremist by judicial error continues.

In the city of Davlekanovo, in Bashkortostan, a court reviewed a criminal case under parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of and participation in, respectively, the activities of extremist organization) in regards to Ural Delmukhametov and Rinat Zarbeev, who were convicted previously (probably on similar charges). They are accused of organizing a cell of the banned Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Meanwhile, in the second half of the month, Aygun Suleymanov, who was accused of creating a Hizb ut-Tahrir cell under Part 1 of Article 282.2, was released from custody pending trial. The Meshchansky district court took the unprecedented decision to release the suspect despite involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir, defying demands from the Federal Security Service and the Prosecutor’s Office.

A trial was launched in January in Novosibirsk against imams Ilkhom Merazhov and Kamil Odilov, who are accused under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of organizing activities in association with the banned organization Nurcular. It is Sova’s position that, in contrast to members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, followers of Said Nursi (those being members of the alleged group Nurcular) have done nothing that would be grounds for suspicion of extremist activity.

In late January, the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Karelia resumed its investigation of Maksim Efimov, the president of the Youth Human Rights Group of Karelia (MPG Karelia), under Part 1 of Article 282, incitement to hatred or hostility and the humiliation of human dignity on the basis of religion. We note that the criminal case against Efimov was initiated following the December 2011 publication of an article entitled Karelia is Sick of Priests on an MPG website. It is Sova’s position that the persecution of Efimov is wrong given that the tiny note, despite its rather aggressive tone, does not contain any calls to illegal action. Efimov has been in Estonia since May 2012, and is included on a Russian federal wanted list. The Investigative Committee has arranged the case's sixth linguistic expert testimony, as the previous five were unable to identify anything criminal in Efimov’s actions. Parts of the prosecution's questions to experts are improperly formulated in that they seek testimony on matters falling only within the competency of the court.

We must note another clear case of the excessive use of Part 1 of Article 282. In late January, Moscow’s Zamoskvoretsky Court sentenced National Democratic Party leader Konstantin Krylov to 120 hours of compulsory labor for a speech delivered at a Stop Feeding the Caucasus rally in October 2011. Krylov’s highly offensive statements about Caucasians are formally subject to Article 282 – humiliation on a national basis – but it is Sova’s position that this section of the article should be removed entirely from the Criminal Code. Krylov pleaded not guilty and is set to contest the ruling.

In the middle of the month the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office approved an indictment against Alexander Lebedev, a deputy of the Sloboda district legislature of the Kirov region. Lebedev, who is often called one of the Russian oligarchs, owns the National Reserve Corporation and is a part owner of investigative journal Novaya Gazeta. He is charged under item “b” of Part 1 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism motivated by political hatred) and parts “a” and “b” of Part 2 of Article 116 of Criminal Code (beating with hooligan motives, and motivated by political hatred). We note that the case against Lebedev began in October 2011 after he got into a brawl with real estate magnate Sergei Polonsky on live television the month before. We view the characterization of the incident as extremist to be founded not in legal considerations, but in populist ones.

Administrative prosecution

In late January Anastasia Konovalova, who in late 2012 was convicted and fined 500 rubles under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (public display of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols similar enough to be confused as such), successfully appealed that verdict. The Volzhsk city court overturned the ruling, ordering an additional examination and remanding the case for review in a magistrate’s court. We note that Konovalova was detained at the Kazan magistrate’s court on the day of the November 2012 Russian March. She had brought a bag featuring a kolovrat, the Slavic swastika, to the court while there in support of participants of the march who were detained. The kolovrat does not resemble the Nazi swastika enough to cause confusion. The kolovrat does not resemble the Nazi swastika enough to cause confusion.

Charges were filed against a 15-year-old student under Article 20.29 of the Administrative code, the production and distribution of extremist materials. Police allege that the student posted a song calling for violence against police, as well as materials that “equated to extremism,” to his social network profile. Determining what is and is not extremist falls only to courts, and anyway, responsibility under administrative articles only applies to Russians aged 16 and older.

Announcements were made this month about the storeowners in Karachay-Cherkessia charged under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for selling Islamic religious literature. We are not aware of exactly what kind of literature was being sold in the Cherkessk shop, though the shop in Uchkeken, in the Malokarachaevsky region, was selling books included on a list of 68 Muslim works banned in March 2012 by the Leninsky Court in Orenburg. The case that banned these books, which we consider to be unlawful, is up for review soon.

At the end of January is was reported that the magistrate’s court of Segezha, in Karelia, convicted and fined а Jehovah’s Witness 1,000 rubles under Article 20.29 for distributing the banned pamphlets What does the Bible Really Teach?, and Questions Young People Ask - Answers That Work, Volume 2. The Segezha City Court upheld the decision. It is Sova’s position that neither of the pamphlets contains grounds for a ban.

Materials banned for extremism

January saw two Jehovah’s Witnesses texts – Are Natural Disasters Punishment From God? and Will You Follow Jehovah's Loving Guidance? – wrongfully banned in Krasnoyarsk’s Soviet Court. As usual, the main reason for the ban was that the materials in question “contain a series of statements designed to promote the exceptionality and superiority of citizens due to their religious affiliation.” Such a motivation, as we have so repeatedly pointed out, is not tenable as the conviction that one’s religion is the superior one is central to the majority of religious creeds.

The Volgograd Central District Court banned two websites, the pages of which hosted books from the collected works of Said Nursi. It is our position that a ban on Nursi’s works, which are a common target for Russian prosecutors, is unlawful.

At the end of the month the Zamoskvoretsky Court of Moscow’s November 2012 decision to ban four Pussy Riot videos came into effect. The decision followed the Moscow City Court’s refusal to hear an appeal from Pussy Riot member Ekaterina Samutsevich, whom it did not recognize as an interested party, thereby denying her the right of appeal.