Unlawful anti-extremism in May 2021

We publish review of the main and most significant developments in the field of illegal enforcement of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in May 2021.

Lawmaking

In May, the State Duma adopted a law in three readings prohibiting being candidates for elections "involved" in activities extremist or terrorist organization. Restriction on the right to be elected, according to the adopted law, will apply to all who in period commencing three years before the entry into force of the decision to ban or liquidation of the relevant organization, served as its founder, member collegiate governing body, head, deputy head, the head of the structural unit or his deputy, as well as those who, during the year prior to the entry into force of the ban, was a participant, member, an employee or "other person involved in the activities" of the organization. IN in the first case - for founders, etc. - limitation of passive suffrage must be maintained for five years from the date of entry into the force of the prohibition decision. In the second - for participants, etc. - the restriction should valid for three years after that date. Under the affiliation activity of an extremist or terrorist organization understand "the direct implementation of goals and / or forms of activity (including number of individual events) in connection with which the relevant organization has been recognized as extremist or terrorist", an expression of "support statements" (including on the Internet) to such purposes and forms activities, as well as the organization itself, providing it with financial, property, organizational, methodological, advisory and other assistance. "Involvement" in a banned organization must be established "an enforceable decision of the court."

A special procedure for establishing by the court such "involvement" legislation does not provide. At the same time, if under "court decision" establishing "involvement" would be understood as a decision in any case, it can be expected, firstly, that the limitations will apply to all people who will be mentioned in the plot of the judicial decision to ban the organization or any other decisions related to it. At However, in such cases, the standards of proof of facts relating precisely to these people are low. Secondly, it is likely that "involvement" in banned organization will be confirmed by judicial decisions taken on "extremist" articles in which, as a circumstance commission of a crime or offense it will be mentioned that the defendant supported a banned organization, for example, through oral or written mentioning in a positive way its political actions, or took part in her activities.

In general, the breadth and vagueness of the concept "involved person" can lead to abuses in law enforcement. Finally, the constitutionality of introducing such broad restrictions passive suffrage, especially for actions committed during the period preceding the banning of the organization and even the filing of charges against it, raises doubts. Deprivation of the right to be elected in this case can be considered as a form of punishment, which should not, according to Art. 54 Constitutions, to be imposed for actions that were not at the time of their commission illegal.

On first reading, a bill was passed, according to which law "On the perpetuation of the Victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic war" a ban is introduced on "public identification of goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, the command and military personnel of the USSR with the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of Nazi Germany, the command and military personnel of Nazi Germany and the Axis during World War II, denial of the decisive role of the Soviet people in the defeat of Nazi Germany and humanitarian mission of the USSR during the liberation of the countries of Europe. statements will be considered similar "identification" in practice, dont clear. We regard the proposed innovation as an unreasonable restriction freedom of expression in the field of historical discussion. Relevant amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses or the Criminal Code have not yet been submitted to the State Duma.

In the middle of the month, the Duma also adopted in the first reading a bill that establishes media liability for mentioning terrorist organizations without indicating that their activities are prohibited.

In addition, at the end of the month, the State Duma was submitted draft law on the obligation of foreign Internet companies, daily audience sites of which there are more than 500 thousand Russian users, open representative offices in Russia. Among other things, it provides that these companies should restrict access to materials banned in Russia. Behind Evasion of this requirement provides for various coercive measures: informing users of search engines about the violation of the site legislation of Russia, a ban on the distribution of its advertising in Russia, a ban on advertising on this site itself, limiting the acceptance of transfers and payments from Russian individuals and legal entities, a ban on search results, a ban on collecting and cross-border transfer of personal data. In addition, for refusing to interact with Roskomnadzor and opening a representative office, for evading storage personal data of Russians on the territory of Russia, as well as within the framework of sanctions for "censoring" Russian media and citizens may also apply such measures as partial or complete restriction of access to a resource using mechanisms "sovereign internet". All these requirements will apply also on foreign hosters working with Russians, advertising networks and foreign information dissemination organizers. On June 1, the bill was passed in first reading.

Practice of the ECtHR

In May, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions on two complaints concerning the restriction of freedom of expression in Russia. The first was filed by Novaya Gazeta in connection with a 2010 year from Roskomnadzor with a warning for quoting the far-right program organization "Russian Image" and demonstrating symbols similar to Nazi. Russia's representative to the ECtHR argued that the warning was proportionate response, as it did not require the newspaper to take any action. The Strasbourg Court, however, observed that it presented the editors with a choice: either refuse detailed coverage of a socially significant topic, or subject to even greater state pressure; according to the current legislation if Roskomnadzor sent the publisher another warning within a year, the publication of the newspaper could be suspended. At this interference with freedom of expression, from the point of view of the ECtHR, in this case was not necessary in a democratic society. Quotes from the manifesto "Russian image" only illustrated an unambiguously expressed idea the author of the article and the editors about the illegal nature of the activities of this organizations, noted the ECtHR. The published symbolism was clearly related to the article and was used in the framework of public discussion, however, Russian judicial instances in which Novaya Gazeta tried to challenge the warning, did not investigate the circumstances of the demonstration of this symbolism at all. ECtHR ordered Russia to pay Novaya Gazeta two thousand euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and more than two thousand euros in respect of legal costs.

The second complaint considered by the ECtHR was filed by Roman Kilin, who in 2011 was sentenced by the Kemerovo court to a suspended sentence under Part 1 of Art. 1 st. 280 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activities) for publication on VKontakte of an excerpt from the film by Pavel Bardin "Russia 88" and the songs "Glory to Rus'" by the group "Kolovrat". The ECHR did not see in the verdict a violation of Kilin's right to freedom of expression opinion, but awarded him one and a half thousand euros for violating the right to a fair trial due to the fact that consideration of it The appeal was held behind closed doors.

Persecution for opposition activities, criticism authorities and calls for separatism

In May in Khabarovsk in relation to the artist Maxim Smolnikov, known under the pseudonym Xadad, was prosecuted according to part 2 of Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public justification of terrorism on the Internet). Court took him into custody. The reason for the persecution of the artist was the post, published on October 31, 2018 in his public on VKontakte, with reasoning about the explosion arranged by the anarcho-communist Mikhail Zhlobitsky in UFSB building in Arkhangelsk. According to Smolnikov, such a radical step Zhlobitsky went because of the repressive policy of the state and, in particular, because torture practiced by employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service and the FSB. The artist noted that this explosion looks like "more like an act of self-immolation" than a "guerrilla attack" or a terrorist attack." At the end of the argument, Smolnikov called what happened "too high a price [of political struggle]" and expressed condolences to the relatives and friends of the deceased anarchist.

We regard the persecution of Smolnikov as unlawful, since we cannot see in his statements signs of any public justifications for terrorism, nor propaganda for terrorism, as defined in notes to Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code: the artist's text contained no allegations of the correctness or permissibility of terrorism.

At the end of May, the court recognized the activist of the Left resistance" to Darya Polyudova guilty under part 2 of article 205.2 of the Criminal Code and part 1 of article 280 Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activity) and sentenced her to six years of imprisonment. Episode related to which Polyudova was found guilty under Art. 280 of the Criminal Code, was originally qualified consequence for hours. 1 Article. 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public calls for terrorist activities), he touched on a video recording from the activist’s phone, in which she in a conversation with a colleague, she commented on the armed attack on the FSB building on Lubyanka, arranged on December 19, 2019. The investigation stated that Polyudova’s statements approving the actions of the shooter Yevgeny Manyurov were heard the people around her.

We question the validity of the persecution Polyudova for this episode. First, if anyone heard the statements activists, there were very few such people. Secondly, if these statements were made in a private conversation, not intended for other people's ears, this means that the criminal intent to make public appeals to Polyudova in this case was not.

As for the charges under Part 2 of Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code, then Initially, it was brought against Polyudova along with the charge under Part 1 of Art. 280.1 Criminal Code (public calls for separatism), later charged under Art. 280.1 of the Criminal Code was removed. The reason was a single picket, during which the activist called residents of the Kuril Islands to hold a referendum on secession Russian Federation, and two publications on VKontakte. In the first post, accompanied by a map of the hypothetical collapse of Russia, Polyudov substantiated her point of view on this issue, referring to Lenin's understanding of the right of nations to self-determination. The second was a repost recordings of another activist containing an endorsement of violent separatism from referring to the example of the armed struggle of the Chechen separatists, was illustrated with a meme with Shamil Basayev. The first post, from our point of view, did not in itself give grounds for persecution. However, the second post indeed contained calls for an armed separatist struggle, while Polyudova did not distance herself from the statements made by the author of the post.

At the end of the month, the Trans-Baikal Regional Court canceled the sentence handed down to the Chita blogger Aleksey Zakruzhny (Lekha Kochegar), and returned his case to the prosecutor. Zakruzhny was previously found guilty under Part 2 of Art. 280 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activity on the Internet) and Part 3 of Art. 212 Criminal Code (calls for riots) and sentenced to a suspended sentence. foundation served as a blogger's stream in which he criticized the ban imposed due to the pandemic to visit cemeteries before the "parents' day", called for "demolish cordons" at the entrance to the cemetery territory and thus arrange "revolution without blood". We considered the verdict Zakruzhny, as unlawful, since he did not call for violent actions.

In Evpatoria, the court sentenced a citizen to a year in prison Ukraine Alexander Dolzhenkov, who participated in the activities of the group "Ukrainian resistance in Crimea" in the social network "VKontakte". He was found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282.1 of the Criminal Code (creation of an extremist communities). Community "Ukrainian Resistance in Crimea" published various materials criticizing the annexation of Crimea to Russia and calls to facilitate his return to Ukraine. Calls for we did not find any violent actions for this purpose in the community, and we there is no reason to believe that the convict and his associates planned such actions.

In early May, a criminal case was opened in Perm on Part 2 Art. 214 of the Criminal Code (vandalism motivated by political hostility) in regarding Pavel Lisin. According to investigators, he wrote on two residential buildings "Putin is a thief". The damage to management companies amounted to 285 rubles and 263 ruble.

And in the middle of the month, a court in Moscow delivered a verdict on that same article to activists Olga Misik, Ivan Vorobyevsky and Igor Basharimov. Misik sentenced to two years of restraint of liberty, and Vorobyevsky and Basharimov to one year nine months of restriction of freedom. Reason for filing a case was a protest against the verdict in the New Greatness case, which received the name "booth of federal significance" in the media. Court established that in August 2020, activists poured water over the wall of the booth of the checkpoint of the General prosecutor's office with paint, and also glued gaskets and a poster with a rough inscription. The material damage suffered by the Prosecutor General's Office amounted to 3464 rubles 50 kopecks. That same night they hung on the fence of the Lublin District Court pads and a few posters.

We question the legitimacy of the existence motive of political and ideological hatred or enmity in an article about vandalism. Vandalism motivated by hatred is essentially close to another unlawful action - inciting hatred, but inciting political or ideological hatred, as opposed to, say, racial or religious, not forms the composition of an offense or crime under Art. 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses or 282 of the Criminal Code. Such actions, if they do not involve violence, are indistinguishable from legal political struggle, implying the rivalry of political platforms and leaders.

In addition, Art. 214 of the Criminal Code is often used in cases where when there is not too serious damage to property. We believe that the matter Lisin can be stopped for insignificance. For cases where termination due to insignificance it is impossible, but the damage is small, it would be appropriate to introduce corresponding provision in the Code of Administrative Offenses.

In mid-May, a court in Kemerovo arrested him for 18 days Art. 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (inciting hatred) and Part 1 of Art. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (disobedience to legal at the request of a police officer) of local opposition blogger Aleksey Fedorov. The reason for bringing him to justice under Art. 20.3.1 Administrative Code became the video "Ghouls destroy Kuzbass. The time for change has come", which he posted on his YouTube channel in November 2020. We we believe that there were no grounds for prosecuting the blogger for this video: it contains contained critical statements about the Kemerovo authorities, but did not there were calls for violence and any unlawful acts. We We also believe that representatives of the authorities should not be considered vulnerable at all. a social group protected by anti-extremist legislation. More In addition, Sova advocates exclusion from the anti-extremist legislation of the vague concept of "social group", which promotes excessive restriction of freedom of expression.

At the end of the month, a court in Novosibirsk fined 18 thousand rubles under Art. 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of activist Viktor Sorokin. He published video message to the Prosecutor General of Russia, in which he accused the prosecutor of the Novosibirsk region Yakov Khoroshev and other law enforcement officers in corruption and in particular that they protect the interests of producers cement associated with ex-governor Viktor Tolokonsky. At the same time, Sorokin used the words "bandits in uniform" and "cops". We We believe that Sorokin was wrongfully brought to justice. Employees law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor's office do not constitute a vulnerable social group requiring special protection from hatred. On the contrary, they should be exceptionally tolerant of criticism, if it is not a real threat of use violence. Sorokin not only did not call for violence, but, on the contrary, demanded compliance with the law and criticized only law enforcement officers, who operate illegally.

In Naryan-Mar at the end of May, according to Part 2 of Art. 20.3.2 Administrative Code (public calls for separatism on the Internet) was fined 35 thousand rubles resident of the village of Krasnoye Konstantin Ledkov. According to him, the reason was two publications on VKontakte claiming that Crimea belongs to Ukraine and that travel to Crimea is shameful under the current conditions. With our point of view, calls for border changes should be considered illegal only in if they are combined with calls for violent action. IN Ledkov's publications, apparently, there were no appeals at all, so there was no There was also a reason for persecution.

In May, social media users continued to be punished Art. 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (public distribution of extremist materials) for publication video of supporters of Alexei Navalny "Let's remember their crooks and thieves Manifesto-2002". The Ardatovsky District Court of Mordovia in May fined one thousand rubles of Andrey Kovalenko. We also became aware of seven more punished for this video in Yoshkar-Ola during the last months: for amounts from one to one and a half thousand rubles were fined Sergey Biryukov, Olga Dolganova, Angelina Ilyina, Andrey Khanov, Ivan Isanov, Denis Babochkin and Alexey Yandlechev. We consider the ban of this video unfounded: it contains only enumeration of a number of unfulfilled election promises of the United Russia" from the 2002 party manifesto and a call to vote for any party except for United Russia.

In Cheboksary, for a thousand rubles under Art. 20.29 Administrative Code fined lawyer Roman Raimov, who left a comment on the social network “Another person suffered because of Milonov with his slogan “Orthodoxy or death” and went abroad.” From our point of view, numerous cases persecution of opposition activists in Chuvashia for mentioning banned slogan "Orthodoxy or death" are unfounded, and the very ban on this slogan is illegal. Let this slogan be popular among the aggressive part Orthodox activists, historically it is interpreted not as a wish for death non-Orthodox, but as a contrast between Orthodoxy and spiritual death, and the vast majority of those who use this slogan in one way or another understand it that way. Besides, pursue for any mention any prohibited material, including a slogan, is absurd.

Other prosecutions for inciting hatred

In Cheboksary for 10 thousand rubles under Art. 20.3.1 Administrative Code Marina Pralkova, a student of oppositional views, was fined. Back in 2015 year, she reposted on VKontakte from the public "Lamp conversations" text written by radical feminist Lyubov Kalugina. In the text spoke of four stages, which, from the point of view of Kalugina, go through women in awareness of their oppressed position; advanced to the fourth stage according to the author, they are preparing a theoretical and ideological basis for future generations women who can "fight for their place in the sun to the last drops of blood" and "will finally sweep away the power of sperm from the face of this beautiful planet." According to the experts who conducted the study publications within the framework of the prosecutor's check, the text contains a set of linguistic and psychological signs of incitement to hatred to men and humiliation of their dignity.

Pralkova's published post is dedicated to awareness women of their position in society and strategies to combat patriarchy, the active phase of which, as follows from the text, will unfold in the distant future. At the same time, there are no inciting calls for violence against men in this no text. The characteristic that Kalugina gives to men in general can be called offensive, but such rhetoric is generally inherent in part radical feminists and, as far as we know, at the current stage social development in itself does not entail socially dangerous consequences. In addition, Pralkova made a repost back in 2015, and so far no it had no significant effect. Therefore, in our opinion, there are grounds for There was no prosecution in this case.

Persecution for the "rehabilitation of Nazism"

At the end of May, the Voronezh Regional Court recognized 63-year-old Alexander Khoroshiltsev guilty under Part 1 of Art. 354.1 CC (approval crimes established by the Nuremberg Tribunal) and sentenced him to a fine at 90 thousand rubles. On May 4, 2020, Khoroshiltsev posted on the website "Bank memory" for demonstration in the same row with veterans of the Great Patriotic war photo of Adolf Hitler, signing it "Schicklgruber Adolf Aloisovich". The investigation considered that by doing so he publicly approved the participation leadership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), including including Hitler, in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity during World War II. Khoroshiltsev himself stated that pursued the goal of rehabilitating Nazism: he sent a photo of Hitler to the site so that he would be “left behind spam" with offers to participate in the "Immortal Regiment".

We believe that Khoroshiltsev's actions are qualified incorrectly. No statements endorsing or denying Nazi crimes, he did not accompany a photo of Hitler. And uploading photos of Nazi leaders to the site, even on the eve of May 9, in itself, in our opinion, is not public approval of the crimes of Nazism.

In addition, it became known that several other similar cases were initiated in connection with the uploading of photos of Nazi criminals as early as 2021 year. Their defendants were the Russians Andrey Akimov from the Orenburg region and Sergei Sakharov from the Tomsk region, as well as Ukrainians Dmitry Alekseenko and Mikhail Fluff.

Persecution of religious organizations and believers

Witnesses Jehovah

The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses continued, accused of involvement in the activities of local religious organizations that were banned as extremist. From our point of view, these prohibitions did not have legal grounds.

In Perm, the court recognized Boris Burylov and Viktor Kuchkov guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of the activities of an extremist organization), and Alexander Inozemtsev and Yuri Vaag - under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 CC (participation in the activities of an extremist organization). All four were sentenced to two and a half years of probation. Igor Turik was found guilty of Part 1 Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code and Part 1 of Art. 282.3 of the Criminal Code (financing of extremist activities) and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

In Rostov-on-Don, 71-year-old Lyudmila Ponomarenko received two years probation under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code.

In the Nadezhdinsky district Primorsky Territory on a similar charge, 73-year-old Lyudmila Shut was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years.

Rustam Seidkuliev from Saratov was sentenced under part 2 Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code to two and a half years in prison.

Vitaly Popov received three years probation in Novosibirsk according to part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code and Part 1 of Art. 282.3 of the Criminal Code.

In the Moscow region, Yuri Krutyakov was sentenced to hh. 1, 2 and 1.1 (involvement in the activities of an extremist organization) Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code to six years of imprisonment on probation, and Zinaida Krutyakova, Konstantin Zherebtsov and Vitaly Nikiforov - suspended for two years under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed a resident of Mari El Ekaterina Pegasheva six and a half years suspended under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code.

Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region toughens sentences Svetlana Monis and Yulia Kaganovich: according to Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code instead of a fine to them He was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment on probation.

In addition, Konstantin Bazhenov, who was released from colony, was deported to Ukraine because he was deprived of citizenship.

A number of new criminal cases were initiated. In Kaltan Kemerovo region, the prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code was brought against Alexander Tsikunov, and under part 2 - Vitaly Syrykh, both were sent under house arrest.

In Maisky of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of Kirill Gushchin, previously accused under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code, now they are also prosecuted under part 1.1 of the same article, and the suspects under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code became his wife Svetlana Gushchina, as well as Zareta Ortanova, Svetlana Dubovkina, Olga Shulgina and Aksana Dominova. In addition, materials under Art. 308 of the Criminal Code (refusal of a witness or victim to testify).

A new criminal case was initiated in the Chelyabinsk region case under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code in relation to Pavel Popov.

In the Altai Territory, the case under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code was filed against Pavel Kazadaev.

Muslims

In the Saratov region in May, a criminal case under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code in relation to a 50-year-old resident of the region, whom accused of involvement in the activities of a banned religious association Tablighi Jamaat. This movement was not seen in calls for violence and, from our point of view, it was recognized as extremist without proper grounds.

Within a month, we became aware of a number of cases of bringing to administrative responsibility in Mari El under Art. 20.29 Code of Administrative Offenses for publishing the video "Miracles of the Quran". In April for a thousand rubles residents of Yoshkar-Ola Izzatilo Isakov and Valea Tamazova were fined. Sernurskiy in May, the district court fined a resident of the village of Paranga Renat for the same amount Salikhov. From our point of view, the film "The Miracles of the Quran" was recognized extremist wrongfully. We did not discover in this more than two hours historical and educational video no calls for violence, no excitement hate or discriminatory speech. The film is sustained in emphatically respectful tone towards other religions (although, of course, it affirms the superiority of Islam; the opposite would be strange). However, Russian courts Citizens have been repeatedly punished for its distribution.

Other

In the middle of the month, the world court in the Tula region fined Shchekin resident Dmitry Bukharov 30 thousand rubles, who was recognized guilty of deliberate public desecration of objects of religious veneration (part 2 of article 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The reason was that he published in "VKontakte" icon-stylized image with Joseph Stalin in the image of a saint. From our point of view, posting such images on the web in itself should not be interpreted as desecration of objects of religious reverence. The publication of collages does not imply any active actions with religious paraphernalia. And if it was a photograph really written someone "icons" of Stalin, it should be noted that the statement about holiness Stalin belongs to the field of religious controversy and in itself is not illegal. Note also that the concept of "defilement" in legislation is not defined.