Unlawful anti-extremism in July 2021

We are publishing a review of the main and most significant events in the field of unlawful application of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in July 2021.

Lawmaking

On July 2, the President signed a decree approving the new National Security Strategy. The updated Strategy differs significantly from the previous version adopted at the end of 2015. Its emphasis is on protecting traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, culture and historical memory, and countering Western influence, especially on the Internet. We provided a brief retelling of this document here .

At the end of the month, the FSB presented a draft order “On approval of the List of information in the field of military, military-technical activities of the Russian Federation, which, when received by a foreign state, its government bodies, an international or foreign organization, foreign citizens or stateless persons, can be used against security Russian Federation". The project was developed in addition to the law, according to which one of the grounds for recognizing an individual as a “foreign agent” is the purposeful collection of information in the field of military and military-technical activities of the Russian Federation, which a foreign source, upon receipt, can use “against the security of the Russian Federation,” in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in Art. 275 of the Criminal Code (treason) and Art. 276 of the Criminal Code (espionage).

The published list consists of 61 items. Among other things, it includes “information on the preparation, conclusion, content, implementation, termination or suspension of international treaties and agreements” (clause 18) and “information on the progress and results of consideration of reports of crimes and preliminary investigations carried out by investigators of the authorities the federal security service and military investigative bodies of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, with the exception of information made public in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation with the permission of authorized employees of the federal security service and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation" (clause 22).

We believe that information about Russia’s implementation of international treaties it has ratified, including in the field of human rights, and information about the preliminary investigation of cases under the jurisdiction of the FSB are of public interest - in particular, when discussing anti-extremist legislation and law enforcement. Designating an individual collecting such data as a “foreign agent” is in itself an undue restriction of civil liberties. However, in reality we are talking about an immediate threat of criminal prosecution: if a person becomes a “foreign agent” precisely in connection with the collection of such information, any violation of the legislation on the activities of foreign agents committed by him will be punished immediately criminally, and not administratively.

On July 27, an interdepartmental Russian delegation led by Deputy Prosecutor General Pyotr Gorodov submitted a draft convention on combating cybercrime to a special UN committee. The project reflects 23 elements of crimes committed using information and communication technologies. The formulations proposed by the Prosecutor General's Office are based on the terminology of the Russian Criminal Code in terms of countering terrorism and extremism, and therefore among them were, among other things, such categories as “humiliation of dignity” on various group grounds or “justification” of illegal acts, which are absent in international law. We believe that attempts to introduce the formulations of Russian anti-extremist legislation into international law, the problematic nature of many of which have been repeatedly noted by authoritative international experts, are inappropriate.

In July, the resolution “On Amendments to Certain Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on Criminal Cases” adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on June 29 was published. Among other things, he changed the resolution of December 21, 2010 No. 28 “On forensic examination in criminal cases.”

The Plenum of the Supreme Court, in particular, clarified its position regarding the inadmissibility of posing legal questions to forensic experts, adding that “questions regarding assessing the reliability of the testimony of a suspect, accused, victim or witness cannot be posed to an expert.” If the expert’s opinion contains conclusions about the legal assessment of the act or the reliability of the testimony of the interrogated persons, it cannot be recognized as admissible evidence in this part.

At the same time, the Supreme Court completely excluded from the resolution all references to the possibility of the court involving specialists in criminal proceedings, including “to assist in assessing the expert’s opinion and interrogating the expert,” that is, to review forensic examinations.

ECtHR practice

In early July, it became known that the European Court of Human Rights had made a decision on the complaint of Sergei Yezhov, Oleg Bespalov and Grigory Tishin - three former members of the National Bolshevik Party (NBP) banned in Russia. All three were participants in an action in August 2004, during which members of the NBP, shouting the slogan “Benefits for the people, scaffolds for the ministers,” went into the building of the Ministry of Health, barricaded themselves in several offices, hung party flags on the windows, and from one of the windows They threw away a portrait of Vladimir Putin. The action was directed against the adoption of a law on the monetization of benefits, which, as the National Bolsheviks insisted, would lead to the impoverishment of the most economically vulnerable segments of the population. In December 2004, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow sentenced seven defendants under Part 2 of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code (group hooliganism with the use of objects that can be used as weapons) and Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code (deliberate destruction or damage to property on a large scale). Like the other defendants, Yezhov, Bespalov and Tishin were each sentenced to five years in prison. In March 2005, the Moscow City Court, on appeal, reduced the sentence for Bespalov to three years in prison, and for Tishin and Yezhov to two and a half years.

The ECtHR concluded that Russia imposed a disproportionately severe punishment on the applicants and also violated the applicants’ right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR), arguing as follows.

Firstly, the trial court did not carefully establish and describe in sufficient detail the individual roles of Yezhov, Bespalov and Tishin during the action. This did not allow the applicants to reasonably challenge the verdict, since it was based on the totality of all events, and not on the specific actions of each of the protest participants.

Secondly, in the reasoning part of the decision, the court expressed its negative attitude not only to the “hooligan” actions of the National Bolsheviks, but also to their political views. The ECtHR considered this a violation of the principle protected by Art. 10 of the ECHR, according to which the state is obliged to maintain neutrality in relation to legitimate political positions and should not interfere with critical speech addressed to it.

On July 13, the ECHR published a decision on the complaint of Vladimir Karataev. The applicant challenged the fine of one thousand rubles, which was imposed on him in 2007 under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code (propaganda and demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols) for publishing photographs of household items and religious cult of Slavic peoples depicting solar symbols.

Karataev published an article in the newspaper "Zakubanye" (the printed organ of the "Union of Slavs of Adygea") entitled "In Defense of the Swastika." The publication talked about the initiative of British Hindu organizations that launched a public campaign to rehabilitate the swastika, “over the last century for most people it has become the main symbol of fascism,” but is an ancient symbol that is used in different religions and among different peoples. Karataev insisted that he did not publish Nazi symbols and was informing readers about an important public campaign, but these arguments did not convince the Russian courts, who simply stated that the symbols presented in the article were confusingly similar to Nazi ones.

Considering Karataev’s complaint, the ECHR referred to several of its own earlier decisions and indicated that, guided by the then current wording of Art. 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, Russian courts made a decision without the necessary consideration of the content, context and purposes of the publication. Thus, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Art. 10 ECHR.

Limitation of passive suffrage

In July, election commissions across the country refused to register candidates who were in one way or another connected with the activities of Alexei Navalny’s organizations, or canceled their nominations in elections at various levels. The reason was the law that came into force on June 4, prohibiting persons “involved” in the activities of organizations recognized as extremist and terrorist from participating in elections.

The district election commission canceled the nomination of Sergei Ukhov, the former head of Navalny’s local headquarters, to the Perm City Duma. Later, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Perm upheld this decision.

In Saratov, the OIC refused to open an election account for the former coordinator of Navalny’s local headquarters, Dmitry Tsibirev, who was planning to run for the city duma. The Kirovsky District Court of Saratov recognized this decision as legal.

In St. Petersburg, the territorial election commission canceled the nomination to the Legislative Assembly of Irina Fatyanova, the former head of Navalny’s city headquarters. The city election commission approved this decision.

In Kaliningrad, the OIC annulled the nomination to the State Duma of Ivan Luzin, a former member of Navalny’s regional headquarters.

In Berdsk, Novosibirsk region, the city election commission refused to register the representative of the independent coalition “Novosibirsk 2020” Kirill Levchenko. The politician himself claims that he never led any of Navalny’s headquarters, but he previously appeared in the press as an employee of the Novosibirsk headquarters.

In the Nizhny Novgorod region, the electoral commission refused to register as a candidate for the State Duma elections journalist and activist Natalya Rezontova, who collaborated with Navalny’s Nizhny Novgorod headquarters in 2017.

In addition, in early July, the Moscow City Court recognized as legal the decisions taken in June to prevent the former head of Navalny’s Moscow headquarters, Oleg Stepanov, from entering the State Duma elections and opposition politician Ilya Yashin from entering the Moscow City Duma elections.

We believe that there are no legal grounds for banning Navalny’s organizations as extremist. We also believe that the amendments prohibiting those “involved” in the activities of extremist organizations from participating in elections unduly restrict freedom of association and voting rights.

Moreover, the court decision to recognize the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), the Foundation for the Defense of Citizens' Rights (FZPG) and Navalny's headquarters as extremist organizations has not yet fully entered into legal force, although it is subject to immediate execution in terms of stopping their activities.

Meanwhile, at the end of July, Roskomnadzor, based on a decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office, blocked access to 49 sites associated with Navalny’s organizations and demanded (unsuccessfully, however) that global networks block a number of personal accounts of Navalny’s associates. The reasons for the extrajudicial blocking were not specified, but it was probably related to the recognition of Navalny’s supporters’ organizations as extremist.

Persecution for criticizing the government and opposition activities

In July, Vladimir Kotov, an activist from Kotlas, Arkhangelsk region, was fined two thousand rubles under Art. 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (mass distribution of extremist materials) for publishing on his page on VKontakte an image “on which the face of a man in a black mask (balaclava) is posted, [as well as] the inscription “Citizens of Russia, be vigilant! The rating is falling - Expect terrorist attacks”" . A picture with this phrase was declared extremist in 2017. We consider the ban on this material to be unfounded, since it does not contain any accusations or other statements that could be considered extremist.

During July, law enforcement agencies continued to persecute oppositionists under Art. 20.29 Code of Administrative Offenses for distributing the video of supporters of Alexei Navalny “Let us remember the Swindlers and Thieves their Manifesto 2002.” It was for its publication that a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up at the end of the month against Nikolai Bondarenko, a deputy of the Saratov Regional Duma and a candidate for State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Let us note that if the court punishes a politician, he will not be able to be elected to government agencies for another year after the end of the implementation of this resolution.

The video “Let's remember the Crooks and Thieves their Manifesto 2002” was recognized as extremist by the Kirovsky District Court of Novosibirsk in 2013, along with several materials from Russian nationalists. The content of this video boils down to listing a number of United Russia's unrealized election promises from the party's 2002 manifesto and a call to vote for any party other than United Russia. We consider the ban on this video to be unfounded, and cases of prosecution for its distribution to be unlawful.

In the city of Ishimbay in the Republic of Bashkortostan, activist Grigory Gorovoy was arrested for five days under Art. 20.3.1 Code of Administrative Offenses (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity). The reason was a video entitled “I brought you bad news POLICE OFFICE OF Bashkiria!!!”, which Gorovoy posted on VKontakte in April of this year.

In the video, Gorovoy, a defender of Kushtau and a supporter of the Public Security Concept (PSC), repeatedly spoke rudely about the activities of Bashkortostan police officers. The activist emphasized that the reason for recording this emotional video was the beating of his friend Ildar, which, according to the activist, could have been police officers or their relatives. At the same time, he noted that there are decent employees in the police, however, from his point of view, there are not enough of them. According to Gorovoy, law enforcement officers of the republic often “interpret the law in their own favor,” protect corrupt officials, not the people, and incite national and social hatred. The activist emphasized that he stands “for the government” and “for the implementation of laws,” and also called on his viewers to come to a “peaceful gathering,” and the police officers not to interfere with the exercise of the constitutional rights of citizens. He also stated that he was ready to “break the mug” of a VKontakte user, presumably an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who threatened him, Gorovoy, and other city residents on the social network.

We consider the persecution of Gorovoy to be unlawful. In general, Gorovoy did not call for violence against the police; a threat expressed to a specific employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who insulted him cannot be qualified under Art. 20.3.1 Code of Administrative Offences. In addition, he emphasized that he did not characterize all law enforcement officers, but only those who, from his point of view, violate the law. In addition, the emotional intensity of his speech was caused by a specific situation related to the beating of his friend.

In Novokuznetsk, the court under Part 4 of Art. 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (repeated dissemination of information in an indecent form expressing clear disrespect for society and the state) arrested for three days local activist Igor Gorlanov, who published on his Youtube channel a video “Appeal to the President from a Kuzbass resident,” containing, according to the court ruling, " a negative assessment of Russian President P. using taboo vocabulary, coarse swear words, as well as neutral vocabulary with a negative lexical meaning.” Let us remind you that we believe that the persecution of oppositionists and activists under the CC. 3-5 tbsp. 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses are clearly aimed at suppressing criticism of the activities of the authorities, which are sufficiently protected by other provisions of law.

At the end of July, a magistrate in Perm dismissed the criminal case against Pavel Lisin, who was accused under Part 2 of Art. 214 of the Criminal Code (vandalism motivated by political enmity), and imposed a court fine in the amount of 20 thousand rubles. The reason for initiating the case was that Lisin, being drunk, wrote “Putin is a thief” on two houses. The damage to the management companies amounted to 285 rubles and 263 rubles. The imposition of a court fine is due to the fact that the defendant fully admitted his guilt, compensated for the damage caused and even painted the walls of the houses himself.

Let us recall that we have doubts about the legitimacy of the existence of a motive of political and ideological hatred or enmity in an article on vandalism: we are inclined to believe that the motives of political and ideological enmity should be classified as aggravating circumstances only in articles on the use of violence. In addition, Art. 214 of the Criminal Code is often used when damage to property is not too serious, and we think that in such cases it would be appropriate to dismiss the case as unimportant or qualify it as an administrative offense. Termination of criminal prosecution with the imposition of a court fine, as in the case of Lisin, also seems to be a reasonable solution.

In Kemerovo, a criminal case was opened against local blogger Mikhail Alferov under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement of social hatred) in connection with a video published on his YouTube channel dedicated to the detention of Alexei Navalny upon his return to Moscow. In this video, Alferov expresses support to the opposition, talks about how the detention took place, and critically responds about the actions of law enforcement agencies, calling them more dangerous criminals than street robbers.

We consider the persecution of Alferov under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code is unlawful. In his video, he sharply condemned the actions of law enforcement agencies and judges, but did not call for violence and any kind of unlawful actions. At the same time, law enforcement agencies, as noted by the ECHR, should be extremely tolerant of criticism if we are not talking about a real threat of violence. Moreover, we believe that police officers should not at all be considered a vulnerable group protected by anti -extremist legislation.

Pursuit for the initiation of national hatred

At the end of July, in Moscow, the case of an administrative offense under Art. 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses was excited against the stand-up comic of Idrak Mirzizade. The reason was his statements in the episode of the show “Dispersal” on YouTube, which was released on March 1, 2021. In a conversation with other comedians, Mirzalizadeh spoke about the difficulties that “non-Slavs” face when finding housing. He also told how with a friend, a native of the Caucasus, he threw a dirty mattress, a witness to the house, who showed a contemptuous attitude towards them. Mirzalizade in rough form noted that the Russian residents who used it polluted the mattress, and expressed the opinion that a house neighbor, also ethnic Russian, did not have a moral right to be obviously negative to him and his friend.

According to the press release of the prosecutor's office, in the speech of Mirzalizada, "linguistic and psychological signs of humiliation of a group of persons allocated on a national basis, as well as the propaganda of its inferiority, were discovered. It is known that the prosecutor’s office checked not the full issue of the Acceleration show, but only an excerpt from a comedian’s speech, published on social networks. We believe that there are no sufficient grounds for the persecution of Mirzalizade. His performance, even having a several provocative form, was devoted to criticism of xenophobia, which came from the Caucasus, and in his reasoning, the comedian directly emphasized the negative attitude towards any nationalism.

Pursuit of "rehabilitation of Nazism" and demonstration of Nazi symbols

In July, the practice of persecution under Art. 354.1 of the Criminal Code (rehabilitation of Nazism) for uploading photographs of Nazi criminals to the website of the Immortal Regiment project.

In one of these cases, a sentence was sentenced at the end of July. In the Orenburg region, the court found the resident of Orsk Andrei Akimov guilty of the approval of the crimes established by the Nuremberg Tribunal (paragraph "in" part 2 of article 354.1 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to a year of imprisonment, which was replaced by a year of coercive work with a deduction of 15 % of the salary. The court found that in April of this year, Akimov, through the application on the social network, sent an application with a photograph of Adolf Hitler to the Bank of Memory.

Within a month, two more similar cases were reported. Their defendants were a 47-year-old resident of Smolensk and a 29-year-old Chelyabinets.

We believe that the actions of users who uploaded photographs of the Nazis to the site of the Immortal Regiment are qualified under Art. 354.1 of the Criminal Code is incorrect. The sending of photographs of Nazi leaders to the site, even shortly before May, from our point of view, is not a public approval of the crimes of Nazism, nor the spread of any information about veterans or activities of the USSR during the war years, neither the spread of any Or information about the days of military glory of Russia, nor the desecration of symbols of military glory.

In Voronezh, the court arrested a local activist and candidate for deputies of the State Duma from the Yabloko party for five days, finding him guilty under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 Code of Administrative Offenses (public display of Nazi symbols).

The reason for this was the publication in the Chat "Free People of Voronezh", tied to the same channel in Telegram. According to the Voronezh Free People movement, in the chat, one of the administrators of which was Sychev, a post from the channel was automatically published. He was dedicated to the release from the guard of the Novosibirsk inspector of the traffic police, who shot the passenger of the car stopped by him. The author of the post critically responded about the actions of the head of the UK Alexander Bastrykin and illustrated the post with a collage, which depicts Vladimir Putin dressed in a Nazi uniform.

July 27 in Voronezh for a thousand rubles under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 Code of Administrative Offenses was fined Stanislav Egorov, who published a photo of Putin on the backdrop of swastika on the background of the swastika with the signature of "Russians in the non -perpetration of Putin, as well as the German people guilty of inconsistency with Hitler."

We consider both cases of prosecution unlawful. From our point of view, only the use of Nazi symbols for the propaganda of the corresponding ideology should be pursued. In the publications of both Sychev and Egorov, the swastika was used not to propagate Nazism, but as a means of political polemic.

Pursuit of the alleged supporters of the ideology "AUE"

In July, at least two criminal cases were instituted against prisoners who are allegedly supporters of the AUE criminal subculture. Recall, although we have no doubt in the illegal orientation of this subculture, in our opinion, its ban as a certain structured extremist organization was not sufficiently justified (for more details, see here ).

In the Kirov region, a criminal case under Part 1.1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (involvement in the activities of an extremist organization) was instituted against a foreigner serving a sentence in one of the colonies of the region. According to media reports, from December 2020 to January 2021, he convinced one of the prisoners to become a “looking at the detachment”, explaining to him the ideology of Aue, and even gave him leaflets on this subject.

In Khabarovsk, in relation to the prisoner IK-3, the case was opened under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organizing the activities of an extremist organization). The reason was that he "painted and embroidered paintings with scenes of execution of employees of law enforcement agencies and the symbols of the organization banned in Russia."

Among the many cases of administrative offenses initiated under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 Code of Administrative Offenses in connection with the demonstration of AUE symbolism in July, the case of the Yoshkarolinets Alexei Seregin, a press secretary of the department of the National Democratic Party in Mari El. The court fined him for one and a half thousand rubles for the picture with the inscription "A.U.E." And the eight -pointed star, which was displayed on Seregin's page in VKontakte in the section "Photos". According to the activist, this picture accompanied the post on his wall that the deputy of the State Duma of Boris Chernyshov was attacked by adolescents who cried out "something in the" AUE "format." Seregin told the court that with his publication he wanted to show that the symbolism of Aue has a negative effect on the population. We believe that Seregin was held liable unlawfully, since he did not promote Aue, but only illustrated the message about the actions of representatives of this criminal subculture.

Pursuit for "insulting the feelings of believers"

In early July, in Moscow, the justice of the peace terminated the case, initiated under Part 1 of Art. 148 of the Criminal Code (public actions expressing a clear disrespect for society and committed in order to insult the religious feelings of believers) in relation to Alina Vlaskina, Maxim Planeev, A. Barsukova and E. Ragolinova. Recall that the reason for initiating the case was the incident on June 11, when four young people on Nagorno Boulevard recorded a video for the social network Tiktok: two young men depicted a feast using a girl as a table; Nearby on the ground stood an icon.

After the report on the initiation of the case, one of the participants in the shooting, Alina Vlaskina, recorded a video with an apology to the believers. Later, Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with the Media of the Moscow Patriarchate Vakhtang Kipshidze said that the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the girl.

Recall that we opposed the adoption of amendments, which were introduced into Art. 148 of the Criminal Code, an insult to the feelings of believers, since we believe that this uncertain concept does not and cannot have a clear legal meaning and should not be used in the legal field.

Persecution of religious organizations and believers

Jehovah witnesses

In July, the mass persecution of Jehovah's witnesses continued: they are accused of involvement in the activities of local religious organizations that were prohibited as extremist. From our point of view, these prohibitions did not have legal grounds, and therefore it is unlawful and the persecution of believers.

According to our information, at least 10 sentences against 16 Jehovah's witnesses were issued in July. Below we give information only about the main punishment; In some cases, it was accompanied by a ban on organizational activities or Internet active and restriction of freedom.

In Chelyabinsk, 75-year-old Vladimir Suvorov was found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to six years in prison.

In Kirov, Andrei Shchepin, Alexander Shamov and Evgeny Uduntsev were found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 and sentenced to fines in the amount of 500, 420 and 200 thousand rubles, respectively.

In Birobidzhan, the Jewish Autonomous Region, Irina Lokhvitskaya, Anna Lokhvitskaya and Natalya Krieger were found guilty under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of an extremist organization) and sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

In the Zee of the Amur Region, Konstantin Moiseenko under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 was sentenced to six years in prison.

In Rostov-on-Don, Arsen Avvanesov and Alexander Parkov were sentenced to six and a half years in prison, and Vilen Avaneses to six. All of them were found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282.2. Avanesov was also accused of financing extremism (part 1 of article 282.3 of the Criminal Code), whether he was found guilty of this charges, was not specified.

Also in Rostov-on-Don, Olga Ganushi, the court sentenced the court under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 to two years in prison.

In Karpinsk, the Sverdlovsk region, the court under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 sentenced Venus Dulov to two years in prison, Daria Dulova - by one year conditionally, and Alexander Pryanikova, according to various messages, to two or two and a half years conditionally.

In Arkhangelsk, Evgeny Yakka was found guilty immediately in three parts of Art. 282.2 - 1, 1.1 and 2 - and sentenced to a fine of 850 thousand rubles.

There were new persons involved in criminal cases of involvement in Jehovah's witnesses. The suspects or accused became:

• In Konakov, the Tver region, Alexander Starikov and Sergey Naumenko - under Part 1 of Art. 282.2;
• In the Vladimir region, Alexei Kupriyanov from the city of Kovrov and Roman Adestov from the village of Ivanovo - according to Part 2 of Art. 282.2;
• In Krasnoyarsk, Alexander Filatov - under Part 1 of Art. 282.2;
• In Luchegorsk, Primorsky Territory Yuri Ponomarenko - under Part 1 of Art. 282.2;
• In Snezhnogorsk, the Murmansk region of Juno Ilyasova and Alexei Eliseev - according to ChF. 1 and 2 tbsp. 282.2; In the same region in the apatites, Denis Merkulov - under Part 1 of Art. 282.2;
• In the Blagoveshchensk of the Amur Region, Maria Portnyagina, Kristina Golik, Ekaterina Olshevskaya and Valentina Ermilova - under Part 2 of Art. 282.2;
• In Yalta, Peter Zhiltsov - under Part 1 of Art. 282.3 and part 1 of Art. 282.2, and Daria Kuzo - only under Part 1 of Art. 282.3;
• In Kodinsk, the Krasnoyarsk Territory suspect under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 became Ildar Urazbakhtin;
• In Kurgan and Shadrinsk, suspects under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 Valery Minzafin and Ilya Ershov were detained, and the accused under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 Sergey Skudaev, Anatoly Isakov, Alexander Lubin - detained;
• In Nalchik A. Lanchev, V. Ponomarenko and N. Smiled also became defendants in the case under Art. 282.2.

At the beginning of the month, Muslims became known that in Tatarstan the alleged leader of the local branch of the Hizb Ut-Tahrir, which was prohibited in Russia, was detained in Tatarstan. The media reported on the initiation of a criminal case against him - probably under Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code (organization of activities of a terrorist organization). The name of the detainee was not named.

The names of the supporters of the Hizb Ut-Tahrir, detained in Penza and Chelyabinsk (except Marat Bazarbaev and Vadim Nasrov, previously convicted of participation in this organization) remain unknown. According to the FSB, from the end of June in the Penza region, the Chelyabinsk region and the Republic of Bashkortostan, 15 people were detained - “four leader and eleven active participants” - of the four “cells” of the party.

Recall that we believe that the prosecution of members of the Hizb Ut-Taurir on “terrorist” articles only on the basis of party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.) is unlawful, since this party, recognized in Russia, was not a terrorist. Noticed in involvement in violence.

In July, we became aware of the next case of bringing to administrative responsibility in Mari El under Art. 20.29 Administrative Code for the distribution of the video "Miracles of the Qur'an". Rosalia Timurgalieva was fined for the publication of this video on its page on VKontakte. From our point of view, the film "The Miracles of the Qur'an" was recognized as extremist illegally. In this more than two-hour historical and educational video material, in our opinion, there are no calls for violence, nor excitement of hatred, nor discriminatory statements. The film is designed in the emphasized tone to other religions (although, of course, it affirms the superiority of Islam; the opposite would be strange). However, Russian courts have repeatedly punished citizens for distributing it.