Sun: Memorial posts without indicating the status of a “foreign agent” violated the right of Russians to “reliable information about its activities”

The Supreme Court published the reasons for the liquidation decision. The court made the decision at the end of December at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office.

The decision lists fines for Memorial and its chairman, Yan Rachinsky, due to the lack of labeling as a “foreign agent” in several of the organization’s materials and posts on social networks (Article 19.41 of the Administrative Code).

The Supreme Court also found that the labeling options used by Memorial in other cases “in their content and meaning did not comply with the requirements [of the law].”

The organization wrote on the Internet: “The Ministry of Justice included the Memorial in the register of NGOs of “foreign agents.” We are not anyone’s agents and we will appeal this decision in court, and you can support us,” and on printed publications she put a stamp stating that she was “included by the Ministry of Justice in the register provided for in paragraph 10 of Art. 13.1 Federal Law "On NPOs".

The law states that materials from a “foreign agent” must be “accompanied by an indication” of his status. According to the Supreme Court, the requirement “is essentially a reproduction” of language from the law.

“In its activities, Memorial demonstrates a persistent disregard for the law, does not ensure the publicity of its activities, prevents proper public control over it, thereby grossly violating the rights of citizens, including the right to reliable information about its activities,” the Supreme Court stated.

Violations of labeling requirements were similarly cited in the decision of the Moscow City Court, which in December decided to liquidate the company.

Although at the meeting the prosecutor accused the organization of “distorting historical memory, primarily about the Great Patriotic War” and justifying terrorism in the lists of political prisoners compiled by the center, these arguments were not mentioned in the text of the decision.