Misuse of Anti-Extremism in May 2024

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in May 2024.

Lawmaking

On May 15, the president signed amendments to the law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Participate in a Referendum” and related acts. The bill initially focused on the technical aspects of submitting data to the electoral commission and was adopted in the first reading on April 2, 2024. As happened on other recent occasions, amendments made to the bill for the second reading involve significant changes that bear very little relation to the bill’s original content. The bill came to include new restrictions on participation in elections for foreign agents and individuals, whom the authorities consider involved in extremist or terrorist activities. On May 6, the State Duma adopted the bill in the second and third readings.

The law prohibits foreign agents from acting as candidates, observers, authorized representatives, and candidates’ proxies in elections at all levels, from federal to local. Candidates will now be required to provide proof of either not being on the foreign agents register or being removed from it. If an elected senator or deputy at the federal or regional level acquires the status of a foreign agent, their powers will be subject to early termination. This also applies to current senators and deputies: their powers will be terminated unless they are removed from the foreign agents register within one hundred and eighty days from the date the law enters into force.

The law imposes similar restrictions on persons included in the Rosfinmonitoring list of extremists and terrorists. Passive voting rights for persons with a criminal record under relevant articles have already been severely limited, and the new amendments will most likely affect suspects and defendants in such cases as well as prevent those on the list from acting as candidate representatives or observers.

In addition, people who have committed an administrative offense falling under the articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) on propaganda or demonstration of prohibited symbols (Article 20.3 CAO) or on the dissemination of extremist materials (Article 20.29 CAO) are now prohibited from holding the position of a member of the election commission with the right to a decisive vote (evidently, this prohibition must remain in effect for a year after the imposition of the punishment).

In our opinion, the law continues a trend aimed at undermining the rights of groups of citizens disliked by the authorities. This includes those recognized as foreign agents and an ever-expanding circle of individuals facing sanctions under the aforementioned articles of the CAO. We must emphasize that this affects thousandsof people each year. The ban on observing elections further increases the opacity of this procedure in the country. These measures are directly aimed at purging the parliamentary ranks of the current opposition members.

Sanctions for Anti-Government Statements and Activities

Calls for Terrorism

On May 30, the Chuguevsky District Court of Primorsky Krai placed Angelina Mkhitaryan, a resident of Chuguevka and an active participant in the “citizens of the USSR” movement, in pre-trial detention. She already had a prior two-year suspended sentence under Article 318 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (CC) for an altercation with a court bailiff. Mkhitaryan was charged under Article 205.2 Part 2 CC (calls for terrorist activities on the Internet). She posted a video on her YouTube channel featuring a speech by Marina Maslennikova, a lawyer and an ex-deputy head of the state legal department in the Moscow City Duma who actively fights “digitalization” she views as part of a conspiracy against Russia. In the video, Maslennikova criticized the policies of the Ministry of Digital Development and its head Maksut Shadayev but used no aggressive rhetoric. Apparently, the case against Mkhitaryan was based on the fact that this video was posted on her channel under the title “Digitalizers led by MAKSUD SHADAEV should be impaled on a stake.” Law enforcement agencies interpreted this headline as “a call for violent actions against officials of the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation.” We consider the criminal prosecution against Mkhitaryan unfounded. In our opinion, the expression “impaled on a stake” should be interpreted figuratively in this case, as dissatisfaction with the ministry’s actions and the desire to hold its employees accountable. Indeed, we are hardly talking about a serious call to apply a medieval execution method against officials.

Inciting Hatred towards the Authorities and Their Supporters

In May, we consider at least three people as inappropriately punished under Article 20.3.1 CAO (inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity) for critical statements against representatives of law enforcement agencies that involved no calls for violence. Two of them faced administrative arrests, and one was fined. One of them was also fined under Article 20.1 Part 3 CAO for “disrespecting the authorities” due to posts that rudely criticized the president.

On May 14, it became known that a criminal case had been initiated against streamer Alexander Sokolovsky from Zelenograd. He faces charges under paragraph “a” of Article 282 Part 2 CC (incitement of hatred and enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity, committed on the Internet with the threat of violence); the court placed him in pre-trial detention. The criminal prosecution against Sokolovsky was based on a stream in which he rudely criticized participants in the special military operation in Ukraine. In particular, the blogger called the military personnel “drunks” and “beasts” and promised to “stuff” them. After his arrest, Sokolovsky said that he had insulted the military due to having “too much to drink.” We have reviewed Sokolovsky’s video and believe that the case against him is inappropriate. In our opinion, military personnel do not have the level of vulnerability that warrants special protection from manifestations of hatred. We generally advocate excluding the vague term “social group” from the legal norms on incitement to hatred due to its broad interpretation. As for calls for aggressive actions against participants in the special operation, it is unlikely that the words streamed by Sokolovsky while intoxicated can be considered a serious threat.

On May 30, reports appeared that yet another (his fifth) criminal case had been opened against the singer Eduard Sharlot, this time under paragraph “a” of Article 282 Part 2 CC (humiliation of a person based on their ethnicity with the threat of violence, committed on the Internet). Previously he had been charged under articles of insulting the feelings of believers, rehabilitation of Nazism, and causing damage to documents. This time, the case was based on Sharlot’s Instagram story captioned: “Russian-speaking little bastards, you are dead even when you breathe.” In our opinion, Sharlot should not have faced responsibility under paragraph “a” of Article 282 Part 2 CC. His Instagram post, while crude in its form, included no calls for violence. In addition, we believe that this kind of statement about Russian-speaking people, coming from a Russian-speaking person, often – including in this case – should be perceived not as incitement to hatred or humiliation of dignity based on ethnicity or language, but as criticism of political opponents.

Vandalism and Hooliganism Motivated by Hatred

On May 3, the 1st Eastern District Military Court sentenced Khabarovsk resident Angel Nikolaev to 15 years of imprisonment, with the first four years to be served in prison and the rest of the term in a maximum-security penal colony. The most serious article of the charge was the article on a terrorist attack – paragraph “c” of Article 205 Part 2 CC (arson committed to intimidate the population while creating a risk of human death and inflicting significant property damage, for the purpose of destabilizing the activities of government bodies). In the fall of 2023, Nikolaev set fire to the premises of the military enlistment office.

Nikolaev also faced other charges and those raised certain doubts. He was found guilty under Article 329 (desecration of the flag of the Russian Federation) and paragraph “b” of Article 244 Part 2 CC (desecration of burial places motivated by political and ideological hatred) for acts committed in the fall of 2022 and winter of 2023. At that time, he used spray paint to apply “images of symbols visually similar to Nazi symbols and paraphernalia”, i.e. two intercrossing letters Z to the flags of the Russian Federation installed in burial places of military personnel killed during the “special military operation.” We doubt the validity of using paragraph “b” of Article 244 Part 2 CC in this case, since the military graves were not damaged due to Nikolaev’s actions (paint was applied only to the flags).

The charge under Article 214 Part 2 CC (vandalism motivated by political and ideological hatred) was based on the fact that “in the spring of 2023, Nikolaev cut out sections depicting chevrons with the flag of the Russian Federation and the Z symbols from the public service announcement at a bus stop, thereby desecrating and defacing it.”

In addition, Nikolaev was convicted under paragraph “b” of Article 213 Part 1 CC (hooliganism motivated by political and ideological hatred) because on the day he defaced the ad at the bus stop, he also “tore off textual and graphic images supporting the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine from several cars and, using a can of white spray paint he had with him, painted symbols visually similar to Nazi symbols,” namely, the intercrossing Z’s. In hooliganism cases, similarly to vandalism, we view the application of ideological or political hate motive as inappropriate, since these actions constitute a form of socio-political expression rather than violent crimes. In addition, Nikolaev’s actions obviously caused property damage, since the paint was applied to the cars, but no significant violation of public order. Therefore, in this case, we believe that it would be more appropriate to apply Article 167 CC.

On May 20, the Primorsky Regional Court considered the prosecutor’s appeal against the sentence imposed on Maxim Chikhunov, a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and a former candidate for the Artyom City Duma. The court found him guilty under Article 213 Part 2 CC (hooliganism motivated by political hatred using an object as a weapon) and sentenced him to three and a half years of imprisonment in a minimal-security penal colony. Earlier, in February, the Leninsky District Court of Vladivostok issued a one-year suspended sentence to Chikhunov under paragraph “b” of Article 213 Part 1 CC, although the charge had been initially brought under Part 2 of this article. The criminal case was based on a video filmed in Vladivostok near a plaque commemorating the White Army General Mikhail Diterikhs. In the video, Chikhunov held a grenade launcher case in his hands, declared that he would smash the board “to smithereens,” and pressed the trigger with an audible click.

We doubt the appropriateness of prosecuting Chikhunov under Article 213 CC. Hooliganism is defined in the Criminal Code as a gross violation of public order expressing clear disrespect for society. In judicial practice, a gross violation of public order indicates actions that lead to the infringement upon the public right to work and leisure, the work of institutions, and so on. However, Chikhunov's action, as far as we know, resulted in no such consequences. It took place late in the day and, based on the video, no witnesses were present. A grenade launcher case that cannot actually launch grenades can hardly be classified as “an object used as a weapon;” furthermore, Chikhunov did not try to use it to break the board. In our opinion, Chikhunov's actions should not be interpreted as expressing obvious disrespect for society – his motive was to express his political position, not just antagonize others.

Discrediting the Use of the Armed Forces or Activities of Government Agencies

According to the data of the State Automated System “Pravosudie” as of June 10, at least 158 people were punished in May under Article 20.3.3 CAO for discrediting the use of armed forces and actions of government agencies.

In May, we learned of five sentences issued under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC for repeated discrediting.

• Back on April 23, the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk convicted local resident Vyacheslav Polkanov for his social media post. The punishment was not reported, but it was likely a fine. Previously, Polkanov was fined under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for an anti-war picket.

• On May 6, the Shchyokino Interdistrict Court of the Tula Region sentenced Yasnaya Polyana resident Roman Altukhov to a fine of 100 thousand rubles for his anti-war posts on VKontakte. Previously, he had faced administrative responsibility, also for his social media posts.

• On May 17, the Shuya City Court of the Ivanovo Region sentenced blogger Sergei Veselov under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC to two years and a month in an open prison, considering the unserved punishment previously assigned to Veselov for insulting a judge (a case under Article 297 Part 2 CC). The court imposed a two-year ban on administering Internet resources as an additional punishment. It is worth noting that the court is considering another case against Veselov based on four counts of repeated discrediting as well as vandalism motivated by political hatred under Article 214 Part 2 CC. A case was also opened against him on charges of confidential cooperation with foreign entities (Article 275.1 CC).

• On May 22, the Severodvinsk City Court of the Arkhangelsk Region sentenced Alexander Malafeevsky to a fine of 100 thousand rubles. The criminal case against Malafeevsky, similar to the prior administrative one, was based on his VKontakte posts; their exact content is unknown.

• On May 22, the Yeniseysky District Court of Krasnoyarsk Krai imposed the same punishment on former firefighter Andrei Anikyev for three comments posted in local communities on VKontakte in 2022. In the first comment, the author stated that the special military operation, unlike the Great Patriotic War, was aggressive and imperialist and compared the actions of Vladimir Putin with Hitler’s attack against the Soviet Union. The second comment listed military leaders who, at different points in time, opposed armed conflicts and contrasted them with those who committed crimes against civilians in other countries. In his third comment, Anikyev stated that the army was attacking civilian infrastructure following Putin’s orders. Previously, Anikyev was fined twice under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO – once for publishing a photograph of a woman with an anti-war poster and for sharing a video message from military pilot and Hero of Russia Gennady Shtern calling for the cessation of the “destruction of Ukrainian cities.”

It is also worth noting that, on May 14, the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan modified the sentence of Ufa resident Anatoly Kudryashov. Instead of a year and a half in an open prison, the defendant now faces a fine of 150 thousand rubles. The basis for the criminal prosecution against him is unknown.

In May, we learned about seven new criminal cases under this article.

• On May 7, the press service of the FSB department for Krasnoyarsk Krai announced the initiation of a criminal case against a resident of the closed administrative-territorial entity of Zheleznogorsk. The case was based on a social media post. Apparently, the defendant is Alexei Smirnov, who was fined in January for posting on VKontakte two videos, produced by the Ukrainian UNIAN news agency and the Current Time channel, about the course of the special military operation in Ukraine.

• On May 12, it became known that a case against Yelena Abramova had been reopened in St. Petersburg. A case against her under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC was first opened in 2023. However, in December of the same year, the court returned the case to the prosecutor due to violations of the procedure for initiating it. Abramova was a member of the election commission with a decisive vote, so the head of the Main Investigations Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for St. Petersburg rather than the Ministry of Internal Affairs, should have initiated the case against her. The criminal prosecution against Abramova, as well as the prior administrative prosecution, was based on her solitary anti-war pickets.

• Reports appeared on May 14 that a criminal case under Article 280.3 Part 2 CC (discrediting the use of armed forces by interfering with the functioning of industrial facilities) was brought against Sergei Krasyuk from Dubna of the Moscow Region; he is currently under house arrest. The charges against Krasyuk, a leading engineer at Raduga state machine building design bureau, were based on certain inscriptions discrediting the army. According to investigators, he wrote these inscriptions on the key fobs for the company’s safe, where mobile phones were stored. Due to damage to the key fobs, the company had to pause its work; the damage from the downtime is estimated at 237 thousand rubles.

• On May 16, it became known that a criminal case was opened against Alexander Akimushkin from the village of Selmenga in the Arkhangelsk Region for unspecified VKontakte posts. The court imposed a preventive measure on him in the form of a ban on certain actions.

• On May 22, we were informed that a new criminal case had been opened in North Ossetia against Teona Kelekhsaeva. In 2022, in her comments in the “ChP/Vladikavkaz” group on VKontakte, she accused the residents of the republic of selling out to the authorities, whom they had only recently despised, betraying the free Caucasus and agreeing to kill civilians for money. In March 2023, Kelekhsaeva was convicted under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC for her anti-war Instagram posts. At that time, the court sentenced her to a fine of 100 thousand rubles and referred her for compulsory outpatient psychiatric treatment.

• On May 23, a criminal case was reported against a resident of Yoshkar-Ola. The charges were related to a VKontakte post made in February.

• On May 27, it became known that a criminal case had been initiated against an Arkhangelsk resident who, in January, posted certain materials on social media that discredited government agencies fulfilling their mandates. He was detained.

In addition, the courts received several cases under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC, which we did not previously cover due to lack of information or insufficient information.

• On April 23, the Southern District Military Court received a criminal case against Gennady Vladimirov, a resident of Primorsko-Akhtarsk in Krasnodar Krai. The information about the newly opened criminal case against Vladimirov became public in December 2023. He was released under travel restrictions. The charges are related to Vladimirov's comments on Telegram. We view as inappropriate the charges brought against him under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC on two counts – for comments on VKontakte about injured civilians in a Ukrainian village and for an image on the same social network that included a woman, a child, a letter Z, and a garbage bag tied with a St. George’s ribbon with a pool of blood underneath. Previously, Vladimirov had been fined under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for a video that showed him burning his military ID and uniform (he was in the reserves at that time). Vladimirov was also charged under several other articles: with justifying terrorism for his comments in support of someone accused of arson of a military enlistment office in Uglich, with calls for extremism in connection with two comments calling for violence against Russians, and with incitement to anti-state activities for two comments, one of which included a call for sabotage.

• On May 2, the Komsomolsky District Court of Khabarovsk Krai received a criminal case against Piruz Peikrishvili, charged with the dissemination of fakes about the army motivated by hatred under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC and paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC. The grounds for the charges are unknown. In December 2023, Peikrishvili already received a suspended sentence under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC for a video, in which he criticized the presidential decree on army reservist training and characterized the authorities’ actions as a betrayal of the interests of the people. He had previously been sentenced to an administrative fine for an anti-war video.

• On May 15, the Leninsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk received the case of Natalia Podolyak, initiated in January; she was released under travel restrictions. The case was based on 17 comments she left on social media in 2023. Podolyak faced administrative fines for her VKontakte comments left in the “Krasnoyarsk live” community and on the page of Valery Vlasov, a member of the Krasnoyarsk Civic Chamber. In May 2023, Podolyak was fired from the Siberian Institute of Business, Management and Psychology, where she had run a sports club.
• On May 23, the Alushta City Court of Crimea registered a criminal case against local resident Denis Yezhov. The basis for the criminal charges against him was not reported. He had previously been fined for shouting near a store to express his opposition to the special military operation in Ukraine.

“Fakes about the Army” Motivated by Hatred

We consider criminal cases under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC (dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Russian army motivated by political hatred) inappropriate unless the incriminating statements contain calls for violence.

In May, courts completed their consideration of three cases involving such charges.

• On May 4, the Leninsky District Court of Omsk sentenced Olga Belova, the former head of the Alliance of Doctors independent union branch in Omsk, in absentia to six years in a minimal-security penal colony with a four-year ban on administering websites on the Internet. The case was based on a certain VKontakte post by Belova, published in the spring of 2022. That same year, she was fined twice under the article on discrediting the army; she was subsequently fired from the clinic, where she had worked as a psychologist, and left Russia.

• On May 23, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow issued a verdict in absentia to economist Konstantin Sonin. He was sentenced to eight and a half years of imprisonment in a minimal-security penal colony with a ban on administering Internet resources for four and a half years. The case against Sonin was based on three posts on his Telegram channel in the spring and summer of 2022.

• On May 31, it became known that the Poltavsky District Court of the Omsk Region sentenced Roman Tyurin, a resident of the village of Olgino, to six years in a minimal-security penal colony with a four-year ban on publicly posting appeals and other materials on the Internet. The case was based on two publications in Odnoklassniki, made in February 2023. A year earlier, Tyurin was fined for publicly displaying prohibited symbols and discrediting the army.

Organized Anti-Government Activities

On April 27, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow placed Konstantin Gabov, a producer of the Reuters news agency, into custody. He faces charges under Article 282.1 Part 2 CC (participating in an extremist community). On the same day, the Apatity City Court of the Murmansk Region placed video journalist Sergei Karelin, who collaborated with the Associated Press news agency, in a pre-trial detention center on the same charge. The charges against them were based on their work preparing photo and video materials for publication on the Navalny LIVE YouTube channel. According to investigators, this constituted participation in the extremist community FBK (“Navalny’s Team”). Earlier, similar charges were brought against SOTAVision journalist Antonina Favorskaya.

On May 29, as part of a criminal investigation under Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code, a search took place in Samara at the residence of Artyom Fokin, the president of Irida, an LGBT organization previously recognized as a foreign agent. We consider charges against activists under the Criminal Code articles related to extremism for activities related to the protection of LGBT rights as inappropriate.

Displaying Banned Symbols

In May, we noted 28 cases of inappropriate sanctions for displaying prohibited symbols under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO.

• Eleven cases were associated with the demonstration of the slogan “Glory to Ukraine,” the Ukrainian trident, or the dissemination of the song “Chervona Kalyna” on social media. Eight people faced administrative arrest, and three were fined.

• Four people faced punishment for displaying symbols of the banned “international LGBT social movement”; two of them were arrested, and two were sentenced to fines.

• Six people were punished for displaying Nazi symbols for a purpose other than propaganda of the corresponding ideology. Five used such symbols to criticize their political opponents, and one faced responsibility after an appointment with a psychiatric narcologist who saw tattoos on the patient’s body. Five people were sentenced to fines, and one was arrested.

• Two people were fined for displaying a white-blue-white flag.

• The court fined two residents of Dagestan for having a pit bull sticker on their car.

• One person was fined for displaying the symbols of structures supporting Alexei Navalny; another person was arrested for displaying the symbols of the movement in support of the ex-governor of Khabarovsk Krai, Sergei Furgal.

• One person was fined for an image illustrating a post about a court trial for an attempt to join the terrorist organization ISIS. The image featured a militant with a machine gun and a black flag with ISIS symbols.

Protecting Historical Memory and “Traditional Values”

“Rehabilitating Nazism”

In May, we recorded two verdicts and several new cases under the article on the rehabilitation of Nazism related to the desecration of symbols of military glory.

On May 7, the regional court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug-Ugra sentenced Zambian citizen Tionge Ziba, a former student of a local university, to a year in prison, finding her guilty under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (desecration of symbols of Russian military glory using the Internet). In April 2022, the student posted a video on a social network in which she swayed her hips for two seconds near the Eternal Flame in Victory Park. The video was accompanied by the following comment in English: “Shaking ass for the dead, I am sure they are sleeping well tonight.” The student claimed she had been unaware of the memorial's significance and apologized. We believe that disorderly conduct near monuments to the dead may deserve condemnation, but criminal prosecution can be justified only for crimes that pose a significant danger to society. In addition, the presence or absence of criminal intent on the part of the offender must also be taken into account, and, in this case, the differences in the cultural traditions of Russia and Zambia, where such movements are not considered obscene, must be considered as well.

On May 31, the Novosibirsk Regional Court sentenced Saidash Balchynmay, a 21-year-old resident of the Republic of Tyva, to a year and eight months in a minimal-security penal colony. He was found guilty under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC (public desecration of symbols of Russia’s military glory; an insult to the memory of defenders of the fatherland). According to the investigators, on the night of November 23, 2023, the defendant, in a state of alcoholic intoxication, approached the Eternal Flame bowl located on the Monument of Glory honoring the feat of Siberians during the Great Patriotic War, sat down in it, smoked a cigarette and then urinated on the pedestal. In our opinion, desecration of a monument (which can be understood as physical damage to a memorial or any other action) can be qualified under Article 214 Part 1 CC (vandalism) if it presents a higher degree of public danger. We regard the use of Article 354.1 Part 3 CC, which provides for more severe sanctions including imprisonment, as disproportionate to the act’s public danger.

On May 3, the Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee for Khabarovsk Krai and the Jewish Autonomous Region announced the initiation of a criminal case under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC. According to investigators, on the night of May 1–2, in Birobidzhan’s Victory Square, a woman (presumably a resident of Obluchensky District) tried to light a cigarette from the Eternal Flame. She also threw flowers she took from the memorial into the Flame.

On May 21, information appeared about a criminal case opened under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC against a 27-year-old local resident previously prosecuted for theft, drug possession, repeated driving while intoxicated, and using false documents. According to investigators, the suspect desecrated a Victory Day installation installed on Ushakov Square in the city center. He climbed onto the base of the installation and, according to some reports, urinated on it. His actions were caught on camera, and he was detained the next day. He explained that he had been intoxicated.

It was reported on May 6 that criminal cases had been initiated in St. Petersburg under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC and Article 329 CC (desecration of Russia’s state flag) based on the fact that, on May 4, someone applied black paint to the Victory Banner and damaged state flags of Russia using a paint-filled syringe. On May 11, Nikolai Trofimov was detained as a suspect. He explained his actions by stating his disagreement with the course taken by the country and added that he had done the same in 2023. On May 13, the court took him into custody. It follows from the court ruling that he damaged the banners and the flag not only on May 4 but also on May 9. Another criminal case was opened against him under an unspecified article for pouring paint on a billboard on Komendantsky Prospect in December.

On May 24, it was reported that a criminal case under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC was opened in Dagestan against a 19-year-old resident of Kaspiysk. According to investigators, on the night of May 11, in the center of the village of Karabudakhkent, he cut off the red flags on display for Victory Day, “which are a symbol of Russia’s glory,” and threw them to the ground. The reports do not specify the type of flags that were affected.

Two more court decisions were related to disseminating disrespectful information about Victory Day.

On May 28, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan issued a verdict against opposition activist Zulfiya Sitdikova from Kazan under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC (disseminating information about the days of Russia’s military glory expressing obvious disrespect for society, insulting the memory of defenders of the Fatherland, humiliating the honor and dignity of a veteran of the Great Patriotic War) and Article 280.3 Part 1 CC. She is facing a two-year suspended sentence with the loss of the right to engage in activities related to the dissemination of information about the activities of the Russian armed forces for the next two years. The jury found Sitdikova guilty and not deserving of leniency – the verdict was announced on May 7. The criminal charges were based on two posters. The first one, seized from Sitdikova in Kazan’s Uritsky Park, read “May 9”, but with the letter “m” replaced by “w” (turning “9 МАЯ” into “9 WAЯ”). According to investigators, Sitdikova placed the second poster with the slogan “No to War” near the Eternal Flame in Victory Park in April. We believe that one’s attitude toward Victory Day, in and of itself, should not lead to criminal prosecution unless its expression is accompanied by calls for violence, hatred, and discrimination. The poster, which forms the basis for the criminal charges against Sitdikova, included no such calls; on the contrary, it was rather pacifist in intent. We should also note that it contained no statements about the defenders of the Fatherland.

Meanwhile, on May 31, the Primorsky Regional Court acquitted Vladivostok resident Alexei Chernyansky, the brother of a regional court judge. He was charged under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (distribution of information about days of military glory, committed on the Internet, expressing obvious disrespect for society). The criminal case was based on an image of a presumably Soviet soldier with the caption “Is it okay if I congratulate you this way?” sent by Chernyansky to his parking garage cooperative’s WhatsApp group on February 23, 2022. It later turned out that the picture depicted not a Soviet soldier, but a soldier of the collaborationist Russian Liberation Army (ROA). Chernyansky did not admit his guilt and explained to the court that the case was initiated following a complaint by an officer of the Pacific Higher Naval School with whom he had a negative interaction. According to Chernyansky, the officer congratulated the chat participants on February 23 with a photo of Admiral Kolchak. Chernyansky was outraged by this post and responded with the image of a Vlasov Army soldier; next, the officer contacted the FSB. We believe that if Chernyansky did, in fact, send a photo of a collaborator as part of such an exchange, this action should not be regarded as Nazi propaganda.

In May, it was also reported that a criminal case under paragraph “c” of Article 354.1 Part 2 (dissemination of deliberately false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, committed on the Internet) was opened on April 24 against Marina Zheleznyakova, the deputy chair of the Yabloko party’s Primorye branch. Zheleznyakova’s apartment in Vladivostok was searched on May 20. The case was based on Zheleznyakova’s social media post dated May 9, 2021, in which she congratulated readers on Victory Day and noted that "in many ways, the outbreak of war and a great number of victims are the responsibility of the communist totalitarian regime.”

One more case of criminal prosecution must be noted here. On May 2, a case was opened in the Murmansk Region under Part 4 of Article 354.1 CC (insulting the memory of defenders of the Fatherland or humiliating the honor and dignity of a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, committed on the Internet) against Konstantin Petrov, a blogger from Izhevsk. The case was initiated after a video recorded and published by Petrov on social media in late April during his trip to the Murmansk Region. He stated, using obscenities, that, while sightseeing, he did not consider it necessary to visit places commemorating veterans (whom he called “superman warriors”) and war-related memorials (referred to as “places for heroes […] deaths and murders.”), or attractions associated with tragic events in general (natural disasters, execution of the royal family, etc.) In his opinion, rather than discussing the long-gone World War, we should focus on positive changes and business achievements. Petrov’s video caused outrage in the region, leading to the blogger's detention and a public apology being forced upon him. Petrov's statements can be considered immoral. However, we must remember that criminal prosecution is justified only in cases of crimes that pose a significant danger to society. There was no propaganda of violence, hatred, or discrimination in Petrov’s statements, and we believe that, despite their provocative form, they posed no significant public danger.

“Insulting the Feelings of Believers”

It was reported on May 3 that a criminal case had been initiated in Stavropol Krai under Article 148 Part 1 CC (insulting the religious feelings of believers) and Article 213 Part 2 CC based on an incident that took place in Novoaleksandrovsk. On May 2, a video was posted on Telegram showing three young men burning the New Testament on a barbecue grill while laughing and making rude remarks. The detainees – 20-year-old Danila Zh., 17-year-old Yuri M., and 21-year-old Dmitry S., students of the local branch of the Stavropol Cooperative College – told investigators that they had found the book under a fence during a birthday celebration.

In our opinion, the actions of the young people do not merit criminal prosecution. The New Testament destruction falls under Article 5.26 CAO (deliberate public desecration of religious or liturgical literature, objects of religious veneration, signs or emblems of ideological symbols and paraphernalia, or their damage or destruction).

As for the use of Article 148 CC, in our opinion, the vague concept of “insulting the religious feelings of believers” included in this article does not and cannot have a clear legal meaning. We believe that if certain statements incite hatred towards followers of any religion, such actions can be qualified under Article 20.3.1 CAO. We reviewed the video posted by the young men and found no hostile statements against Christians in it. Therefore, we see no grounds for charges of hooliganism based on religious hatred in this case, especially since the actions of the young people did not lead to a gross violation of public order.

The Dorogobuzhsky District Court of the Smolensk Region received a similar case in late April and transferred it into the jurisdiction of a magistrate court on May 13. Mikhail Kirpichenkov and Andrei Kushnerev have been charged under Article 148 Part 1 CC in combination with Article 30 Part 3 (attempting to insult the religious feelings of believers). On February 11, 2024, due to “disagreement with the Russian Orthodox Church,” they set fire to a Bible and began filming the burning on a mobile phone camera, but a police officer noticed this and took both offenders to the nearest traffic police department.

On the night of May 25, near Yekaterinburg, law enforcement officers disrupted a BDSM party of the project Kovcheg (Blue Velvet). The party organizer, Stanislav Slovikovsky, was taken to the investigative department, where he was informed that a criminal case was opened against him under Article 148 Part 1 CC. The case was based on materials published about a year ago on Slovikovsky’s project Telegram channel. The first of them is a photograph of a girl with a stylized wreath on her head, reminiscent of a crown of thorns. The second post was part of the “Write Your Sin” performance, in which the participants held signs with names of various sins: anger, pride, and fornication. As law enforcement officials explained, the post was problematic because the very word “sin” pertains to the church. In the third photo, the girl posed against the background of crossed beams installed in the photo studio, reminiscent of a crucifix. Let us note that Slovikovsky’s earlier party at the Yekaterinburg District Officers’ House caused public discussions that resulted in the resignation of the institution’s head.

On May 22, the Omsk Regional Court granted the request of the regional department of the Ministry of Justice for liquidating the local parish of the Greek Catholic Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin, whose minister was charged under two articles of the Criminal Code. The liquidation was based on certain gross violations of federal legislation, which the Ministry of Justice considered irreparable. It is worth reminding that the minister of this parish, Igor Maximov, was placed under house arrest in late April on charges under Article 354.1 Part 1 CC and Article 148 Part 2 CC (insulting the religious feelings of believers, committed in places intended for worship). The case was based on images of Ukrainian nationalists stylized under icons which were displayed in the refectory.

Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers

Jehovah's Witnesses

In May, Jehovah's Witnesses continued to face prosecution on charges of involvement in the activities of local religious organizations that were deemed extremist and banned.

We are aware of six court decisions issued in April in cases involving 13 people. One such decision was an acquittal.

• On May 2, the Maisky District Court of Kabardino-Balkaria made a decision in the case filed against Kirill Guschin under Parts 1 and 1.1 of Article 282.2 CC (organizing the activities of an extremist organization and involving others in its activities). The court fully acquitted the believer. Meanwhile, during the oral hearing, the state prosecutor asked for a guilty verdict and seven years of imprisonment for Guschin to be served in a minimal-security penal colony.
• On May 2, the Pozharsky District Court of Primorsky Krai found four Jehovah's Witnesses from Luchegorsk guilty. The court issued suspended sentences of six and a half years to Yuri Ponomarenko and six years and four months to Oleg Sergeev under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC; two years and eight months to Andrei Lyakhov, and two and a half years to Nikolay Dikhtyar under Part 2 of the same article (participation in the activities of an extremist organization).
• On May 13, the Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk sentenced Mikhail Derendyaev, Alexander Kutin, and Sergei Ashikhmin to three years in a minimal-security penal colony under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC, which provides for incarceration terms ranging from six to ten years.
• On May 13, the Leninsky District Court of Barnaul issued suspended sentences of two years and three months to retirees Mikhail Reshetnikov, Yuri Kolotinsky, and Anatoly Sarychev under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC.
• On May 14, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Tambov issued a two-year suspended sentence to 68-year-old Igor Kabasov under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC.
• On May 29, the Zeya District Court of the Amur Region issued a three-year suspended sentence under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC to Yevgeny Sokolov from Voronezh with an additional restriction of freedom for 10 months. Sokolov is also a defendant under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC in the case against Jehovah’s Witnesses currently under consideration by the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh.

Muslims

On May 13, the Sterlitamak City Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan fined Bulat Shigabutdinov, imam-khatib and chair of the local Muslim religious organization “Maryam” in the village of Novaya Otradovka, two thousand rubles under Article 20.29 CAO (mass distribution of extremist materials). In late February, FSB officers inspected the organization’s premises and found the following banned Islamic literature in them: 40 Hadith of Imam An-Nawawi, Stories of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the Fortress of a Muslim. The court fined him and ordered the books to be confiscated. In our opinion, the persecution of the imam-khatib is unlawful, since there were no grounds for recognizing these books as extremist. None of them contains inflammatory calls or signs of inciting hatred on religious grounds.

On May 23, the Central District Military Court found Rais Mavlyutov guilty under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 CC (incitement to terrorist activities) and sentenced him to 10 years in a maximum-security penal colony. Due to the partial addition to the punishment under his previous sentence, Mavlyutov was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment. According to the prosecution’s version, upheld by the court, Mavlyutov persuaded his cellmate in a Yekaterinburg pre-trial detention center to join the banned Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir. Previously, Mavlyutov had been sentenced to 23 years in prison on several counts of terrorist activities for involvement in the party. We believe that the ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir is not entirely unfounded. However, prosecution under Article 205.1 CC solely for suggesting others join this organization, in the absence of convincing charges of other terrorist crimes, leads to clearly disproportionate punishment.