Lawmaking
In early December, the National Assembly of the Republic of Dagestan introduced to the State Duma a bill that contained amendments to the Federal Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation.” According to this draft bill, all individuals, involved in military operations against Russian troops or peacekeepers or involved in terrorist or extremist activities against Russian citizens at home or abroad, should be deprived of their the Russian citizenship. The adoption of such a law would provide the authorities with unlimited possibilities for abuse in the area of combating extremism and terrorism. However, the approval of this law would have to be preceded by the constitutional amendment, since the Constitution currently stipulates that a citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deprived of his/her citizenship or of the right to change it.
On the same day, the Russian government has introduced to the State Duma its draft amendments to the federal law “On Mass Media.” The bill proposes that persons, who are still serving their sentences or have outstanding convictions for crimes against the constitutional order and state security or grave/extremely grave crimes related to violation of the laws on mass media or countering extremist activity, be prohibited from creating mass media outlets. Note that grave and extremely grave crimes of extremist nature are already included among the crimes against the constitutional order and state security. If the bill passes in its current form, it will violate the right to freedom of expression for everyone convicted of any crimes of an extremist nature; however, many convictions under the relevant articles have been issued inappropriately. Restrictions would affect even people convicted of less grave extremist crimes (Article 282 Part 1, Article 282.1 Part 2, and Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code). Meanwhile, the potential effectiveness of the amendment is highly dubious – individuals, banned from founding media outlets, will still be able to participate in the work of media founded by someone else.
In addition, the proposed amendments allow Roskomnadzor to deny permission to distribute a foreign printed periodical publication or revoke an existing permit, if the said publication fails to comply with the Law on Impermissibility of Abuse of freedom of Mass Information and with the anti-extremist legislation in general. In addition, this revocation would be based on the results “of control (supervision) measures... with no interaction with a distributor of the foreign periodical publication” in a manner prescribed by Roskomnadzor. Thus, the draft amendment not only fails to indicate revoking permission is subject to a court procedure, but also provides no indication of methods to be used by Roskomnadzor for detecting anti-extremist legislation violations. The observers are alarmed by the possibility of Roskomnadzor issuing extrajudicial inappropriate decisions and significantly limiting freedom of speech.
Criminal Prosecution
In the second half of December, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar found Kuban activist Darya Polyudova guilty under Article 280.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation committed using the Internet) and under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 280 (public incitement to extremist activities, including that committed via the Internet) and sentenced her to two years of imprisonment in a penal colony. The criminal case against Polyudova was opened in August 2014 after an attempt by Krasnodar activists to organize the March for Federalization of Kuban. Polyudova was arrested in September of the same year, held in custody for six months, and released on terms of remaining at her approved address in February 2015. She was charged under Article 280.1 Part 2 of the Criminal Code for sharing the post, which stated that Kuban’s ethnic Ukrainians demanded incorporation into Ukraine, via VKontakte social network. She was further charged under Part 1 of Article 280 for a photograph of a picket featuring the poster “Not a War with Ukraine, but a Revolution in Russia” and under Part 2 Article 280 of the Criminal Code for publishing a call for people to come out to the streets and overthrow the regime. We believe that the criminal case against Polyudova was partially inappropriate and partially disproportionate, and view the subsequent verdict as inappropriate.
In December, Crimean Tatar human rights activist Emir-Usein Kuku reported from Yalta that he had been summoned for questioning in connection with a criminal case being opened against him under Article 282 (inciting national hatred). According to Kuku, his case is based on at least 42 of his Facebook posts, including shared posts and comments, the incriminating materials also include video addresses to the Muslims of Crimea in different languages, reports on the Russian army losses in Syria, statements by leader of the Crimean Tatars Mustafa Dzhemilev about upcoming persecution, statement in defense of the Muslims by Maxim Shevchenko, and a photograph of a signpost with the sign “The RF – go away. Unutma, it happened.” Unfortunately, we do not have a complete list of materials from Kuku’s Facebook deemed extremist by the law enforcement. We found no signs of incitement to ethnic hatred in the materials mentioned by the activist. Attempts to interpret his rejection of Russia’s annexation of Crimea’s in such a manner seem unfounded. Notably, although the acquisition of Crimea is not problematic under Russian laws, it is a problematic issue with regard to international law, and, in addition, people, who have unwittingly become Russian citizens, should have the right to express their opinion on this matter.
In mid-December, the Moscow City Court considered the appeal of roofer Vladimir Podrezov and commuted his sentence from 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment to limitation of freedom of movementfor 2 years and 3 months. Podrezov was released from custody in the courtroom. He had been convicted under Article 213 Part 2 and Article 214 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism and vandalism motivated by hatred) in the case of the painted star and the Ukrainian flag, raised on the steeple of a high-rise building on Kotelnicheskaya embankment in Moscow on August 20, 2014. Four base-jumpers, also charged in the case, were acquitted. Remember, Ukrainian roofer Pavel Ushivets has taken responsibility for this action. We would like to remind that we disagree with the qualification of this case – regardless of the perpetrator’s identity, an object of alleged hatred is unclear; furthermore, the action should have been classified as a minor (rather than gross) violation of public order and tried as an administrative offense under Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code (petty hooliganism).
In the second half of the month, the police raided the Simferopol house of the parents of Father Sergiy – a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP). As it turned out, a criminal case has been opened against him under Part 2 Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (participation in an extremist organization). Materials, confiscated during the search, included notebooks with Father Sergiy’s personal notes and his People's Movement of Ukraine (Narodny Rukh Ukrainy) party membership card. Father Sergiy currently resides on Ukrainian territory controlled by the Kiev authorities. If the priest is being prosecuted under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code merely for his membership People's Movement of Ukraine, this prosecution is inappropriate, since this party is not listed among the organizations liquidated or banned in Russia for extremist activity.
As part of a criminal investigation of the Army of People’s Will (AVN) organization, banned for extremism, activist of the Initiative Group of the Referendum “For Responsible Power” (IGPR “ZOV”) Kirill Barabash was arrested in mid-December as a defendant under Part 1 Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code. Yury Mukhin, Alexander Sokolov, Valery Parfyonov, and now Kirill Barabash have been accused of re-establishing the AVN under a new name, but with the same goals and objectives. You may recall that a new movement with a similar ideology (IGPR “ZOV”) has been founded after the ban against the AVN. Law enforcement agencies concluded that this new organization was continuing the activities of the AVN and started prosecuting its active participants. In our view, the prohibition of AVN – an organization with Stalinist and nationalist tendencies, which had repeatedly engaged in xenophobic propaganda – was inappropriate, because it was recognized as extremist based solely on the prohibition against the leaflet: You have elected — You are to judge!, which called for amending the Constitution so as to make unpopular officials face legal responsibility. The ban is unfounded, since a call for a referendum on amending the Constitution is not an illegal act, even if a proposed amendment runs contrary to the present Constitution.
Notably, a similar case against local activist Pavell Butko was closed in late December in Nizhny Novgorod. Butko was accused of organizing activities of the AVN based on the fact that his phone was listed as a contact number on the prohibited organization’s website. According to Butko, the prosecutors suspected him of continuing illegal activities due to the existence of the online group “Nizhny Novgorod Residents for the Right of the People to Judge the Authorities,” despite the fact that the last AVN-related entry, made in February 2011, informed about its ban. The prosecutor refused to sign the indictment, did not send it to the court and returned the case to the investigators to eliminate the violations. As a result, the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
The Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted two followers of the Muslim theologian Said Nursi for continuing activities of the banned religious organization Nurcular in mid-December. Andrey Dedkov was sentenced under Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code to a fine of 150 thousand rubles. Alexey Kuzmenko was fined 100 thousand rubles under Article 282.2 Part 2. Dedkov was found guilty of distributing prohibited books by Nursi and creating a network of venues for religious classes, and Kuzmenko – of participating in the religious classes in 2011-2014 and, upon Dedkov’s request, himself leading such classes, during which he read and commented Nursi's books and gave them to his attendees. A similar criminal case against Dedkov had been dismissed in the past. We would like to remind here that we consider inappropriate both the ban against books by Turkish theologian Said Nursi and the ban against Nurcular organization, which has never even existed in Russia – there are only isolated Nursi followers facing unreasonable persecution.
In early December, imam Kamil Odilov was arrested in Novosibirsk and charged under Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code. Another resident of Novosibirsk, Uralbek Karaguzinov, was detained as a suspect under the Part 2 of Article 282.2, but was released after 48-hour detention. Odilov has been accused of organizing Nurcular activities in Novosibirsk, and Karaguzinov is suspected of participating in activities of prohibited association. In addition, according to reports, the police believes that imam Ilkhom Merazhov serves as another leader of the cell, but has information that he is currently in Turkey. Over 400 books were seized from the defendants during searches, including those recognized as extremist. You may recall that imams of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of Asian Regions of Russia Odilov and Merazhov were already found guilty of organizing an extremist organization and received suspended one-year sentences in 2013. Prosecution against the imams based exclusively on the fact of their study of Nursi's books.
It was reported in mid-December, that Chelyabinsk residents Salavat Khabirov, Alfred Shaimov, Rinat Shamsutdinov, Orifdzhan Mirov and Radik Kabirov have been accused of collaboration with the banned religious party Hizb ut-Tahrir. They are facing criminal charges under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2, as well as Parts 1 and 2 of Article 205.5 (organizing or participating in the activities of a terrorist organization), Article 30 Part 1 and Article 278 (preparation for the action aimed at violent seizure or violent retention of power). According to the investigators, the defendants organized a structural unit of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chelyabinsk in 2013, headed by Khabirov; they held meetings, studied literature of the organization and recruited new members. The criminal case was transferred to the Moscow District Military Court for consideration of the merits. As you may remember, we view charges of terrorism or conspiracy against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers, based solely on their party activities (meetings, reading the literature, and so on), as inappropriate.
In mid-December, it was reported that a criminal case under Part 1 of Article 282 was initiated against a 19-year-old student of the Omsk Transportation University. According to investigators, the student posted “extremist statements aimed at abasement of human dignity by reason of belonging to a group defined by religion, “Orthodox” on his social network page.” The post in question is a comment to the news about a Marilyn Manson’s concert cancelled in Omsk as a result of pressure by “Russian Orthodox activists.” Once again, we believe that, as a minor offence, abasement of dignity should be removed from the list of criminal charges and added the Code of Administrative Offences. Moreover, in our view, an extremely vague concept of a social group should not be used in the anti-extremist legislation at all, including in Article 282.
The case of two residents of the Vyatskopolyansky District in the Kirov region was reported at the same time. They are suspected under Article 148 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public actions, expressing obvious disrespect for society, with intention to insult religious feelings of believers). According to the investigators, in September 2015, the offenders traveled at night from the town of Sosnovka to the village of Staraya Malinovka and placed on a standing cross a stuffed dummy, made specifically for that purpose. The prosecutors believe that the act was pre-meditated and committed in order to insult the feelings of Christians. In our view, the suspects’ actions presented no public danger, and should have been appropriately qualified as an administrative offense, rather than a crime.
Administrative Prosecution
In December, we received information about six individuals and two entities that faced responsibility under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for illegal distribution of prohibited materials or for possession with intent to distribute. The individuals include two Jehovah's Witnesses, accused of possessing and distributing prohibited pamphlets – a Stavropol resident, fined in the amount of two thousand rubles, and a Voronezh resident, sentenced to ten days of administrative arrest. We would like to reiterate that we consider persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia legally inappropriate and view it as religious discrimination. Three Muslims were fined for distributing banned Islamic literature (it happened in October-November of 2015, but we only received this information in December) – a Perm resident was fined 1000 rubles for publishing Miracles of the Qur'an on the social network VKontakte, and two inmates of Penal Colony Number 11 in Kirovo-Chepetsk were found guilty of distributing the collection of prayers Fortress of the Muslim and brochure Thirty-Three Windows by Said Nursi among their fellow inmates. In Khabarovsk, Mirs, a local bookstore chain, was fined 100 thousand rubles – and its head administrator was fined 2000 rubles – for selling an inappropriately banned book “Strike Forces” against Putin by Ilya Falkovsky and Alexander Litoy. Chelyabinsk telecommunication operator ER-Telecom Holding was sentenced to a fine of 100 thousand rubles due to the fact that computers in a school, serviced by ER-Telecom Holding, had allowed access to banned sites. We believe that the school computers should have been equipped with special filters, designed to restrict student access to prohibited information, and in addition, a provider’s oversight cannot be classified under the article, which pertains to deliberate mass dissemination of extremist materials.
In Shebalinsky District of the Altai Republic, a general education school in Aktel was fined 20 thousand rubles under Article 6.17 Part 2 of the Administrative Code (failure to implement administrative and organizational measures or provide technical, software or hardware protection of children from information harmful to their health and development by an entity responsible for access to information, disseminated through information and telecommunication networks in locations accessible to children). The charge was based on the fact that computers in the computer science classroom allowed access to websites with extremist or pornographic content. We believe that school staff should not be held responsible for the inevitable performance issues of the content filtering software.
The Petrozavodsk City Court sentenced Karelian blogger and journalist Vadim Shtepa to administrative detention for a period of one day under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (public display of Nazi symbols) in early December. The case was based on the fact of Shtepa’s non-compliance with the previous decision by the same court – he never removed from his social network page the photographs of a World War II Finnish tank bearing the hakaristi sign, reminiscent of the Nazi swastika (which is still in use by the Finnish army) and of the “Yarosh’s business card,” and the illustrated post comparing the historical Karelian flag with the flag of the Right Sector. A photo of the historical monument – i.e. the Second World War tank – obviously cannot be interpreted as propaganda of Nazism. We also doubt the assertion that Shtepa publishing the Right Sector insignia for propaganda purposes. At the conclusion of the court proceedings, Shtepa deleted his two social network accounts.
Materials Banned as Extremist
The Federal List of Extremist Materials added several points in December following a number of clearly inappropriate bans handed down by the Russian courts. These include Express-Kamchatka Online opposition news site (No. 3167), two videos that use the soundtrack of a well-known Ukrainian song Putin Khuilo (No. 3207), a video by Saratov hip-hop group Gribnoy Dozhdik (Sunshower) mocking neo-Nazis, and some materials by Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church Andrey Maklakov (No. 3209). A ban against three analytical articles on ISIS (which did not attempt to justify its activities) was reported in December in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District.
