Unlawful anti-extremism in June 2018

We publish an overview of the main and most significant events in the field of misuse of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in June 2018.

Rulemaking

On June 27, the President signed a law establishing the responsibility of search engines for avoiding connecting to an information system with information about blocked sites and for failing to fulfill their obligations to stop issuing links to these sites. The law introduces Art. 13.40 (failure to fulfill obligations by the search engine operator), according to which citizens operating search engines will be fined 5 thousand rubles, officials - 50 thousand rubles, legal entities - from 500 to 700 thousand rubles. In addition, Art. 19.7.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (failure to submit information to Roskomnadzor) is supplemented by part 1.1, which punishes hosting providers that do not provide or do not submit data to Roskomnadzor in a timely manner that allow identifying their clients-owners of anonymizer sites or VPN services. For individuals, a fine is set in the amount of 30 to 50 thousand rubles, for legal entities - from 50 to 300 thousand rubles.

On June 25, deputies Sergei Shargunov and Alexei Zhuravlev submitted to the State Duma a package of two bills, which provides for the decriminalization of acts falling under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code. The deputies propose to transfer Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (" actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliating the dignity of a person or a group of persons on the grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as membership in any social group, committed publicly or using the mass media or information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet " ) from the Criminal Code to the Code of Administrative Offenses, where a new Art. 20.3.1, which provides for the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 10 thousand to 20 thousand rubles, or compulsory work for up to 100 hours, or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days. From Art. 282 in the Criminal Code, only the second part remains (" the same actions   committed with the use of violence or with the threat of its use and (or) by a person using his official position or by an organized group "), the punishment for it remains the same (up to six years in prison). The government and the Supreme Court gave a negative review to the proposals of Shargunov and Zhuravlev back in the spring of 2017. The deputies were pointed out, in particular, to the formal inconsistency of the bills with existing legislation and the fact that in the proposed wording, the criteria of publicity and use of the Internet are excluded from Article 282 of the Criminal Code, which will lead to “expanding the scope of the draft criminal law norm.” The likelihood that this bill will be approved is extremely small, at best, it may become We support the idea of ​​reforming anti-extremist legislation, including the idea of ​​decriminalizing part of the current composition of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, but we believe that changes should be carefully thought out.

On June 14, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia adopted a resolution "On some issues related to the use of confiscation of property in criminal proceedings." In the draft resolution, the Supreme Court, among other things, indicated that in criminal cases on crimes of a terrorist and extremist orientation, “ any property belonging to the accused, which is a tool, equipment or other means of committing a crime ” (in particular, cell phones, computers, etc.) .). At the same time, the Supreme Court noted, if money, valuables or other property was intended for " financing terrorism, extremist activities, an organized group, an illegal armed group, a criminal community (criminal organization) ", then in accordance with paragraph "c" part 1 Art. 104.1 of the Criminal Code, they are subject to confiscation " regardless of their ownership ". Accordingly, the seizure of property in order to ensure possible confiscation may be imposed not only on the suspected, accused or persons materially responsible for their actions, but on any persons if " there are sufficient grounds to believe "that it was used as an instrument of crime. In the reasoning part of the relevant decision, the court must justify the choice of certain restrictions on property rights, " necessary and sufficient " to ensure the safety of property.

Practice of the ECtHR

In June it became known that on May 14 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) communicated three complaints about the application of Russian anti-extremist legislation.

Among them is a complaint from Chelyabinsk resident Konstantin Zharinov, who was convicted in 2015 under Part 1 of Art. 280 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activity) for reposting the appeal of the "Right Sector" to " Russians and other enslaved peoples ." Zharinov, as a historian, specialized in the history of terrorism, and this explained the repost. He did not agree with the published appeal and, in general, did not resort to such rhetoric in social networks. The ECHR asked the Russian side whether the sentence to Zharinov could be considered an interference with his right to freedom of expression, protected by paragraph 1 of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and if so, was this interference justified in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 10 of the Convention, and also whether the punishment imposed on him was proportionate.

Cheboksary oppositionist Alena Blinova (Elena Romanova) complained about the fine under Art. 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (mass distribution of extremist materials), to which she was sentenced in 2017 for distributing, in our opinion, the illegally prohibited slogan "Orthodoxy or death." The activist made a repost of the opinion of the deputy Vitaly Milonov on the persecution of the coordinator of Open Russia in Chuvashia, Dmitry Semenov, for spreading this slogan in the Art Preparation Bad News group on the social network VKontakte (his complaint was also communicated to the ECtHR). Later, the administration of Cheboksary refused to give her approval for a mass event, citing the fact that she was brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In her complaint, Blinova pointed to a violation by the Russian side of Art. 10 and Art. 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. Russia will have to answer questions about whether the courts applied standards in the Blinova case, consistent with the principles of Art. 10 of the Convention; whether they took into account the context of the publication; whether a legitimate aim of the interference with Blinova's right to expression has been established; whether the decision was predictable given that Milonov was not prosecuted for the mentioned slogan; whether the courts considered the question of the proportionality of the sanction. In addition, the ECtHR wants to understand whether the legislative ban on organizing public events pursues any legitimate goal for those prosecuted under "extremist" administrative articles and whether it was proportionate in the case of Blinova.

In addition, the ECHR communicated the complaint of the leader of the Perm branch of the People's Freedom Party (PARNAS) Mikhail Kasimov, combining it with the complaints of ten other Russian citizens prosecuted under Art. 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (propaganda or demonstration of Nazi symbols). All of them were subjected to various types of punishment for publicly displaying images with Nazi or similar symbols and appealed to the ECtHR against the sanctions applied to them. This is mainly about various opposition-oriented collages published on the Internet depicting Russian state symbols or state leaders, including the president, and Nazi symbols or Nazi leaders in uniform. There are other cases as well. Thus, one of the applicants was fined for a banner with a Kolovrat, which he hung out at the match, others were punished for publishing historical photographs, posters, fragments from films, which featured Nazi symbols. The ECtHR, among other things, asked Russia whether there had been an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression, whether it was based on the law and necessary in a democratic society, whether the applicants could have foreseen that they could be punished for their actions, in particular, for older publications. The SOVA Center is not aware of all the cases that appear in the lawsuit, and we admit that in some of these cases, the demonstration of Nazi symbols could be aimed at promoting the corresponding ideology. However, we are convinced that sanctions are permissible only when the display of symbols is for propaganda purposes, and the courts must make appropriate decisions, carefully considering the context, while the total ban on the display of extremist symbols must be lifted.

Prosecution for incitement to hatred and opposition speech

On June 5, the Toropetsky District Court of the Tver Region issued a verdict in the case of a local resident, Vladimir Yegorov, who was accused of public calls for extremist activity on the Internet (Part 2 of Article 280 of the Criminal Code). The opposition activist was found guilty and given a two-year suspended prison sentence with three years' probation and a ban on moderating websites. The court also decided to confiscate the system unit of a personal computer from him. The reason for the persecution was Yegorov's post in the public "Citizens of Toropets" in the social network "VKontakte", which he moderated. The post contained a photo of Putin and a text stating that intelligence-driven propaganda aimed to justify the head of state by shifting the blame for all the government's blunders to other officials. The author urged " not to fall for" such propaganda tricks, and stated that " it is necessary to bring down the main Kremlin rat with his cronies-accomplices ". We believe that such abstract, albeit aggressive, anti-government statements by ordinary citizens do not pose a significant danger, since they cannot be implemented. Criminal prosecution in such cases, in our opinion, is unjustified: the removal of a provocative publication may be quite a sufficient measure.

On the same day, it became known that a case had been opened in the Kirov region under Part 1 of Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public calls to carry out terrorist activities or public justification of terrorism) in relation to a 27-year-old prisoner in one of the correctional colonies. According to the investigators, in January-February, while serving a sentence in a correctional facility, while watching a news story covering the criminal activities of a terrorist organization, in the presence of other convicts publicly justified terrorism, expressing words of approval and support for the actions of militants . We have doubts about the presence of a crime in the actions of the accused, since it is not clear whether his statements should be considered made publicly: they were hardly available to a wide audience; however, we do not have information about the exact number of prisoners who were present when watching the TV show.

In June, Andrey Novoselov, a resident of the Chaikovsky Perm Territory, was fined 1,000 rubles under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for publishing a video with a modified scene from the TV movie "Seventeen Moments of Spring". A supporter of the nationalist party "Great Fatherland" Novoselov was prosecuted as a result of an online conflict with Ilya U., his fellow countryman, a supporter of Alexei Navalny. According to Ilya, at first Novoselov complained to the police that his opponent posted on his page information about the invasion of Germany and the USSR into Poland in 1939, supplying the post with a picture with a swastika. Novoselov considered this publication offensive and distorting the role of the USSR in World War II, but law enforcement agencies did not see it as a crime. In May, a video appeared on Novoselov's page - a scene from Seventeen Moments of Spring, in which Stirlitz hit Holtoff with a bottle on the head; at the same time, a photograph of Ilya U. was superimposed on Holtoff's face in the published video. He complained about the video to the prosecutor's office, after which an administrative case was initiated. Novoselov pleaded not guilty to committing an administrative offense and filed a complaint against the decision with the Perm Regional Court. This curious case once again proves the incorrectness of the current legislative norms that allow punishing for demonstrating Nazi symbols without the purpose of promoting Nazi ideology.

On June 7, an activist of Alexei Navalny's headquarters in Pskov, Pavel Chernov, was summoned to a meeting of the commission on juvenile affairs. A protocol was drawn up against him under Part 1 of Art. 5.35 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (improper performance of parental duties). Claims against him arose from the police because of the video "Discofuhrer", which was found on the page of his 11-year-old son on the social network. The video is a compilation of several photographs and film stills, mostly depicting Hitler, mounted in such a way that it seems to the viewer that the Fuhrer is moving to the rhythm of a sounding dance composition (Mo-Do - Eins Zwei Polizei). One of the frames contains several images of the swastika. We believe that this video is of a humorous nature and does not in itself carry any propaganda load.

On June 19, the Ustinovsky District Court of Izhevsk fined local resident Larisa Fefilova 2,000 rubles under Art. 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (mass distribution of extremist materials) due to the fact that in March she published on the social network "VKontakte" the film "Attempt on Russia" directed by Jean-Charles Deniot and Charles Gazelle, based on the book by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky "The FSB blows up Russia". The film was included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials on March 20, 2018, and on Fefilova's page published on March 23, she stated that she did not know that it was recognized as extremist. We consider the film's ban unreasonable.

Persecution of religious organizations and believers

On June 8, the Moscow District Military Court passed a sentence under s. 2 tbsp. 205.5 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of an organization recognized as terrorist) to a native of Kyrgyzstan, Farrukh Mamayusupov. For participation in the activities of the Islamic radical party Hizb ut-Tahrir, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison in a strict regime colony. Mamayusupov was arrested in December 2016 among 12 Muslims detained in Moscow and the Moscow region on suspicion of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir. We consider it unlawful to accuse Hizb ut-Tahrir followers of terrorism only on the basis of party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.).

On May 30, the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic overturned a March decision by the Prokhladnensky District Court to block four websites of Jehovah's Witnesses, including jw-russia.org. The blocking decision was based on the fact that they contained " various sections, publications, magazines, books, videos, news about the religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses" . Representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to participate in the process.

Meanwhile, persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses continued in various regions of Russia due to the ban on their communities. Law enforcement agencies initiate more and more new criminal cases against believers under CC. 1 and 2 Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of the activities of an organization banned for extremism, and participation in such).

At the end of May, a preliminary investigation into a criminal case on participation in the activities of the local community of Jehovah's Witnesses was completed in Orel. It became known that the defendant in the case is Sergei Skrynnikov from Oryol, he is under house arrest. The Oryol community was recognized as extremist in 2016, and the case of Danish citizen Dennis Christensen, who has been under arrest for more than a year on charges of organizing its activities after the ban, is now being considered by the court.

On May 30, in Magadan, as part of the investigation of a criminal case under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code, three Jehovah's Witnesses were detained: Konstantin Petrov, Yevgeny Zyablov and Sergey Yerkin. Ivan Puyda was detained in Khabarovsk on the same day within the framework of the same criminal case. All four were later placed under arrest.

On June 4, it became known that a criminal case had been opened for the continuation of the activities of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Tomsk. 48-year-old Sergey Klimov was detained and later arrested for two months. The day before, searches were carried out at the homes of other Tomsk believers; law enforcement officers broke into houses, seized equipment, books and papers, money, bank cards without drawing up appropriate acts. About 30 people, including an 83-year-old woman, were detained and taken to the local Center for Combating Extremism for questioning, one of the believers was hospitalized.

On June 12, searches were carried out at the homes of Jehovah's Witnesses in Saratov and the village of Shirokoye, Saratov Region. Law enforcement officers broke down the doors to apartments, confiscated all the equipment, "books, photographs, notebooks, personal savings, passbooks, passports." In addition, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that forbidden literature was planted in the apartments during two searches. More than 10 people were taken to the FSB for interrogation. Believers Konstantin Bazhenov, Felix Makhammadiev and Aleksey Budenchuk were arrested under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code.

On June 19, representatives of Russian human rights organizations published a collective statement demanding an end to the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for their religious activities, the release from custody of believers accused under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code, and the annulment, using the available procedural possibilities, of the decision of the Supreme Court of April 20, 2017 on liquidation and prohibition of activities of organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses. The SOVA Center believes that this decision, like the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in general, had no legal basis, and considers it as a manifestation of religious discrimination. According to our information, as of June 1, 2018, 21 followers of Jehovah's Witnesses were in jail on charges of continuing the activities of banned communities.