Misuse of Anti-Extremism in July 2014

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events relating to misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in July 2014.

Lawmaking

In the second half of July, the President signed the Law “On Amendments to Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,” which toughens punishment for “public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation” and applies to any statements made ​​on the Internet. We are averse to Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code, as we continue to insist that the definition of extremism in accordance with the Constitution categorically includes only violent separatism. Toughening and expanding the purview of the article looks to us like an attack on the freedom of speech, especially in view of the debate on the annexation of Crimea.

Criminal prosecution

In July, the Investigative Committee in Chuvashia opened a criminal case under Part 1 of Article 282 (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as the abasement of human dignity) against the founder and editor-in-chief of the information and analysis newspaper “Bribe,” (Vzyatka) Eduard Mochalov. The charges stemmed from the reprint in the "Bribe” #1, 2013 of an article by the well-known Tatar activist Fauzia Bayramova entitled “We are Tatars, not Russians.” Bayramova’s article contains harsh statements against Russians: for example, denying Russians’ right to hegemony the author attributes them with various stereotypical vices. However, Bayramova avoids direct aggressive calls, so we do not believe that this xenophobic article gives grounds for criminal prosecution. Earlier, one of the authors of the newspaper “Bribe,” Ille Ivanov, having been prosecuted, had his article banned as extremist, and the newspaper received a warning from Roskomnadzor. Fauzia Bayramova herself stands implicated in another criminal case of incitement to hatred.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygea confirmed the verdict for the editor of the blog “Free Speech of Adygea,” Vasily Purdenko, who in May 2014 was fined 100 thousand rubles under the very same Part 1 of Article 282. Purdenko was accused for publishing an article entitled “Being Russian in Adygea is Possible, but Futile” (“Nationalism in Action”), which was subsequently recognized as extremist, in “Free Speech of Adygea” on September 5, 2012. The article, which was written from a nationalist perspective, contained criticism of the politics of the local authorities, including that of cronyism, violations of national parity, and generally misguided personnel policy. However, it is not possible to discern from the substantial signs of incitement to hatred and enmity towards Circassians, especially any dangerous calls that would merit prosecution.

The Chelyabinsk Regional Court reached a verdict for three more participants in the pogrom at the rock festival “Tornado” in 2010. Let’s recall that, at that time, the locals injured several dozen guests at the festival, and the courts continue on the pogrom case to date. One of the accused was found guilty, not only of the organization of mass riots accompanied by violence, but also according to Paragraph “A” of Part 2 of Article 282 (publicly committed actions aimed at inciting hatred, as well as at the abasement of human dignity and groups of people on the grounds of affiliation with a particular social group, with the application of violence). We believe the accusation held against the pogrom participants for inciting hatred to be unlawful. Rock fans, in inciting hatred to which they were accused, can hardly be considered a separate social group requiring protection according to anti-extremist legislation. In addition, the main reason for the attack was a conflict between the accused and the guests of the festival occurred just before the pogrom.

The reason for the charges of inciting hatred is increasingly becoming a controversy surrounding the events in Ukraine.

A second criminal case was filed under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code against Alexander Byvshev, a resident of the village of Kromy in the Oryol region, for publishing pro-Ukrainian poems on social networks. This time, the amateur poet is accused of publishing the poem “Ukrainian Insurgents,” dedicated to Stepan Bandera and his soldiers in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and written from their perspective. The poem refers to the willingness of the Banderites to defend Ukraine against “fascists” as though against “Muscovites.” Law enforcement authorities saw here an allusion to current events and accused the author of inciting ethnic hatred against Russians. From our point of view, ethnic hatred is not discernible in the poem, so there is no basis for criminal prosecution under Article 282 of the Criminal Code.

The Investigative Committee of the Novgorod region opened a criminal case concerning the placement of publications on Alexei Navalny’s party activist Ksenia Sergeeva’s page in the social network “VKontakte.” We were familiar with only one of the images appearing in the case; it was reposted by Sergeeva from another page of the same social network. The picture is the Russian tricolor, on which is imprinted a swastika composed of St. George ribbons. Though having reposted this image, the owner of the page obviously did not intend to promote Nazi ideology, and used it in a polemic on the issue of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The creator of the picture likely pursued the same goal—to brand opponents as supporters of “fascism.” Calling opponents “fascists” is not always appropriate, but does not exactly constitute a crime.

The Investigative Committee opened the case under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code against the prisoner of the IK-5 penal colony in Nizhny Tagil (name not reported). The case has gone to the court. According to investigators, the suspect, who was in a room where prisoners were watching TV and talking, started “rudely fulminating on religious matters” and asserting the superiority of one religion over another. Other prisoners, offended, interrupted him and reported the incident to employees of the colony. It is reported that the linguistic expertise conducted at the behest of the investigation found in the statements of the suspect calls for incitement to religious hatred. In our view, the case under Article 282 against the prisoner was unlawfully filed, inasmuch as arbitrarily rude and offensive remarks were not made publicly: the suspect spoke within the confines of one room and addressed a small group. In addition, the promotion of the superiority of one religion over others, as well as the criticism of religions, is not a crime, as per the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

At the end of the month, Taganrog City Court delivered its verdict on the case concerning 16 Jehovah's Witnesses accused of continuing their local religious organization, which was banned, completely without foundation, as extremist in 2009. Seven of the defendants were convicted, and nine were acquitted. Four convicts were sentenced under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of the activity of an extremist organization) and Part 4 of Article 150 of the Criminal Code (involvement of a minor in the commission of a crime) to a conditional imprisonment term ranging from 5 to 5.5 years and a fine of 100 thousand rubles with an exemption from the payment due to the lapse of time. Three more convicts were sentenced under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (participation in an extremist organization) to fines ranging from 50 to 60 thousand rubles, with an exemption from the payment due to the lapse of time.

Let’s note that the believers were also accused of the most common religious activities, as well as actions that can not be attributed to “extremism”; for example, the refusal of blood transfusions or service in the armed forces. Jehovah's Witnesses do not confess their guilt, and they declare that they do not intend to abandon the faith and stop worship services, and that they will challenge the verdict in the Rostov Regional Court.

In late July, the Moscow City Court came to a guilty verdict on the case of the four followers of “Hizb ut-Tahrir.” Azizbek Inamov was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony under Part 1 of Article 282.2, Part 1 of Article 30, and Article 278 of the Criminal Code (preparation for the violent seizure of power and the violent change of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation). He was also found guilty under Part 1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code (other involvement of persons in committing actions aimed at the violent seizure and the violent change of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation). Shamil Ismailov and Saypula Kurbanov were sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony under Part 1 of Article 282.2, Part 1 of Article 30, and Article 278 of the Criminal Code. Zikrullokhon Rakhmonkhodzhaev was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony under Part 2 of Article 282.2, Part 1 of Article 30, Article 278, and Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code (illegal acquisition and possession of ammunition and explosives). In addition, all four were sentenced to fines ranging from 200 to 50 thousand rubles. In relation to the charges under Part 1 of Article 30, Article 278, and Part 1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code, we believe it is necessary to recall that supporters of “Hizb ut-Tahrir” in Russia have never been convicted of real conspiratorial activities until now. We consider unlawful any practice of persecution on charges of preparing a government overthrow, when these allegations are made ​​only on the basis of party activity (for example, leading discussions or distributing literature).

Three men convicted under anti-extremist articles were successful in defending their economic rights. In July, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Arkhangelsk upheld the claim of the head of the Association of Pomors of the Arkhangelsk Region, Ivan Moseev, having declared illegal the actions of the Arkhangelsk branch of Sberbank Russia to stop the operations of the plaintiff’s bank account. The court also ordered the removal of restrictions on the disposal of money, and additionally required one thousand rubles in moral damages in the applicant's favor. Let’s recall that, during the proceedings of the Moseev case under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, Sberbank blocked Moseev’s card, referring to a technical failure; after the sentencing—an unlawful sentencing, from our point of view—Sberbank blocked it completely. They explained this measure such that Moseev is included in the “Rosfinmonitoring list,” which is a list of organizations and individuals involved in terrorist or extremist activity. However, at that moment, a law requiring the blocking of accounts of individuals and organizations included on the list had not yet been adopted, so the bank had to monitor the status of Moseev’s accounts, but had no right to arbitrarily block them.

Imams Ilkhom Merazhov and Kamil Odilov, who were wrongfully convicted of organizing the activities of the banned organization “Nurdzhular”, were also excluded from the Rosfinmonitoring list in late June. Remember, we consider a severe restriction on financial transactions for those on the Rosfinmonitoring list to be an indiscriminate extrajudicial punishment.

Members of Pussy Riot Maria Alekhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova filed a final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in July in which they confirmed their previous claim and specified the amount of costs of the court proceedings and moral damages at EUR 120,000 to the claimant. In addition, they requested to oblige Russia to compensate them for court costs in the amount of EUR 10,000.

Complaining about a violation by the Russian authorities, which in 2012 banned videos of Pussy Riot, of the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the lawyers of the band members pointed out that, because of the overly broad definitions of “extremism,” “extremist activity,” and “extremist materials” in Russian legislation, the prohibition of any statement in accordance with this law violates Article 10 of the Convention. The courts, which heard the case on the prohibition of the band’s clips, took no action to compensate the legislative gaps while reaching the decision; the clips have been banned, despite the fact that they posed no threat to national security, public order, and the rights of citizens.

Administrative prosecution

In July, we became aware that, according to Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (the dissemination of extremist materials) two people were wrongfully fined. In Kazan, the co-chair of the Kazan Civil Union, Boris Begayev, was fined for the distribution of Alexei Navalny’s wrongfully banned video. In Krasnoyarsk, a local resident, Alexander Yevdoshenko, was fined for giving a banned brochure to an attendee at a worship service of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Ban on materials for extremism and other state action

The Central District Court of Barnaul found four brochures of Jehovah's Witnesses to be extremist: “What can People Expect?”, “How to Develop a Close Relationship with God?”, “What you Need to Know About God and His Purpose?", and “How to Achieve Happiness in Life?” which are identical to the founding text of the Jehovah's Witnesses, “What Does the Bible Really Teach?”, included on the federal list of extremist materials (p. 510) on the basis of the decision of the Rostov Regional Court from September 11, 2009. The Court agreed with the prosecution that these materials “insult religious feelings, humiliate human dignity on the basis of religion, and promote the exclusivity of one religion over another.”

In July, a major website, Nurru.com, was brought into the Unified Register of Banned Sites; the site was dedicated to the heritage of a Turkish theologian, Said Nursi. The decision to block the site was issued by one of the Russian courts on April 9, 2014. Let’s recall that we believe the ban on the works of Said Nursi, the ban on the nonexistent organization of his followers, “Nurdzhular”, as extremist, and the prosecution of believers for the study of Nursi’s works to be unlawful.

In July, seventeen poems, which were posted on the literary portal “Litzona” in “Civil Lyrics,” were also added to the register, pursuant to the court’s decision. Part of the works constitutes criticism of the government and separate social groups (e.g. officials); we believe that these poems are wrongfully banned. However, in the remaining poems there were statements which fit the definition of extremist activity, and these webpages are prohibited by law. The Portal "Litzona" itself is also entered in the register and blocked, perhaps temporarily. Although the administration of the site declares its nationalist orientation, obviously, not all of the many publications placed on it are inflammatory.

The Moscow City Court dismissed Alexei Navalny’s complaint and recognized the decision to block his blog on “LiveJournal” (navalny.livejournal.com) as lawful. At the court hearing, it was finally established that the blog was locked on account of two records, the first of which was dedicated to the events in Ukraine: in the conclusion there was a call to come to support the defendants in the case on the riots in Bolotnaya Square. The second record also contained a call to come to the court, where the verdict on “Bolotny case” should have been announced. The court also discussed the purpose of restricting access to the whole blog entirely on account of the two records. The prosecutor's office said that the law does not oblige it to specify a page of the blog when carrying out the decision on blocking. The representative of Roskomnadzor reported that the block was being carried out by the administration of “LiveJournal,” in which case it was likely not possible to restrict access to separate pages. Navalny is intent on removing these two entries so that access to his page in “Live Journal” will be reopened. Let’s recall that, in April, The Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow also found the block on Navalny’s blog to be lawful.

The prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, announced a warning about the inadmissibility of extremist activity to the Mejlis. She read this document to the head of the Mejlis, Refat Chubarov, on July 5 at checkpoint “Chongar” at the entrance to Crimea (simultaneously with the decision on a five-year ban against Chubarov’s entry to Russia). Since neither meetings nor calls for the recreation of autonomy and for non-participation in the elections, which the Mejlis was blamed for by the prosecutor's office, are signs of extremist activity, the warning was issued unlawfully.