Misuse of Anti-Extremism in May 2016

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of anti-extremist legislation in Russia in May 2016.

Lawmaking

In mid-May, the State Duma adopted in the first reading the package of two bills on combating terrorism and extremism, introduced by member of the Federation Council Viktor Ozerov and Deputy Irina Yarovaya. The bills propose an unprecedented increase in severity of punishment for crimes of terrorist and extremist character and contain a number of repressive procedural innovations (more details are available here; our opinion on the draft bills can be viewed here). The Duma’s Legal Department has formulated a number of comments to the bills. The Supreme Court has criticized the bill that proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, including criticism of suggested harsher penalties for extremist crimes. However, the Russian government has approved the bill; its only suggestion was to shorten the time period for which citizens' electronic correspondence should be preserved. The Presidential Council for Human Rights suggested that the package be withdrawn. We agree with their opinion. First, the Russian law enforcement practice has not demonstrated need for harsher measures to combat extremism (for example, prosecutors almost never ask for the maximum applicable penalty under the “extremist” articles.) Next, the fight against extremism and even terrorism cannot justify and does not require measures that further restrict human rights - freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to information, privacy and freedom of movement.

The Coordination Center for National Internet Domain (KC) is planning to grant Roskomnadzor a right to extra-judicial withdrawal (i.e. taking away from the owners) of the domain names of the sites in the “ru” and “рф” domains that are used, among other purposes, for disseminating extremist materials. The proposed measure is unacceptable for the following reasons: it is essentially an extra-judicial confiscation, it is not targeted (think of an online library), and, given the size and quality of the List of prohibited materials, it will inevitably lead to new forms of abuse and assault on freedom of speech.

Criminal Prosecution

In early May, the Zavolzhsky District Court of Tver sentenced Andrey Bubeev to two years of imprisonment in a penal colony. The case, which involves the charges of public incitement to extremism on the Internet (Article 280 Part 2) and public incitement to actions aimed at violation of the Russian Federation's territorial integrity (Article 280.1 Part 2), was opened against Bubeev in September 2015 for sharing on his VKontakte social network page Boris Stomakhin’s article about Crimea and an image, depicting a hand that squeezes the toothpaste out of its tube with the caption “Squeeze Russia out of Yourself,” accompanied by the assertion that the only possible form of protest had to involve “active destruction” of Russia “as the Chechens did at one time, for example.” We view the verdict against Bubeev under Article 280.1 as inappropriate, because we believe that citizens are entitled to openly express their opinion on Russia’s new territorial acquisitions. Taking into account his prior conviction under Article 282 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (incitement to ethnic hatred) and Article 222 Part 1 (illegal purchase and possession of firearms), Bubeev will spend two years and three months in a penal colony.

Igor Stenin, the leader of the Russians of Astrakhan movement, was sentenced to two years in a penal colony under Article 280 Part 2 of the Criminal Code in mid-May, Stenin was found guilty of posting an entry on the subject of the war in the Ukraine on VKontakte; he also was charged for a comment, left by a different user. In our opinion, the short post, calling for destruction of “the Kremlin invaders,” cited in the court case, can’t be considered an incitement to extremist activity. The collective image of “the Kremlin invaders,” used in the past years by disgruntled citizens to denote the authorities, has obviously received even broader and less specific connotations in connection with the Ukrainian events. It is not possible to interpret this figure of speech as a direct call for violence against members of a particular social group, and, previously, the police had never prosecuted the citizens for this popular slogan, not attaching much importance to it. If this statement is interpreted as a call to action against the Russian authorities, it should be noted that the authorities do not constitute a vulnerable social group in need of special protection in the form of anti-extremist Criminal Code articles, and, in addition, the statement in questions pertains to activities outside the territory of Russia. In general, we believe that the Ukrainian crisis inevitably provokes people to extreme statements that are otherwise not characteristic of them. In this situation, it is more expedient not to resort to criminal prosecution even for the harshest statements, unless they clearly and unambiguously constitute the offense. The unjustified severity of Stenin’s sentence - two years of real prison term - should also be noted. The defense has announced its intention to appeal the verdict.

In mid-May, the artist Peter Pavlensky was convicted under Article 214 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (vandalism committed by a group of persons by prior agreement) for his “Freedom” action. The circuit session of the Magistrate court of Saint-Petersburg at the Moscow's Preobrazhensky Court sentenced Pavlensky to 1 year and 4 months of restriction of liberty, but released him from punishment due to the statute of limitations for criminal responsibility. Earlier, the court tried to close the case due to the statute of limitations, but this proved impossible due to the defendant’s refusal. The defense plans to appeal the verdict. Recall that, in February 2014, five participants of the “Freedom” action in support of the Ukrainian Euromaidan unfurled a black flag and the state flag of Ukraine on Maly Konyushenny Bridge, opposite the Church of the Savior on Blood, set a number of automobile tires on fire and banged sticks on metal sheets. Despite the fact that the hate motive was not imputed to Pavlensky, we consider his conviction inappropriate, due to lack of evidence; the action caused no property damage (the greatest damage caused by the actionists consisted of the burn marks on the pavement), i.e. it did not meet the Criminal Code definition of vandalism. In addition, Pavlensky had already faced administrative responsibility for the same offense.

In mid-May, the Crimean Prosecutor's Office announced that a criminal case under Article 280.1 Part 2 of the Criminal Code against deputy chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People Ilmi Umerov. The incriminating event was the address made by Umerov in March 2016 in a live broadcast of the ATR TV channel in Ukraine. Umerov was arrested in Bakhchisarai and taken to the FSB in Simferopol; his house was searched, and he had to agree to travel restrictions. We would like to remind here that we view prosecution of the Crimean Tatar activists, who call for returning Crimea to Ukraine, as inappropriate - it is impossible to accuse people, who have opposed the Russia’s acquisition of the territory from the very beginning, of separatism. Notably, the legality of the annexation of Crimea to Russia is not entirely clear from the point of view of international law, and citizens have a right to their views in this dispute.

It was announced in early May, that the Sevastopol Investigation Department of the Russian Federation Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Article 282 Part 1 (incitement of hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity) in relation to the incident of substituted anthem at the opening meeting of the Public Expert Council under the Governor of Sevastopol in April. The attendees heard a satirical version of the Russian national anthem with the lyrics “Russia - our mad nation,” and so on. The organizers explained the incident as a mistake of the sound engineers, who had mistakenly downloaded a wrong version from the Internet. Initially, the city authorities urged the community to avoid unnecessary dramatization of the situation and not to inflate the scandal around the incident. However, in their enthusiasm for utilizing anti-extremist Criminal Code articles, the Crimean law enforcement agencies could not resist and ignore even this minor comic incident. From our point of view, a criminal case under Article 282 was unfounded in this instance, because the incriminating version of the anthem does not contain signs of inciting hatred towards anyone, and criticism of the state do not fall under Article 282 or any other articles of the Russian legislation. However, a proposal was immediately made in the Federation Council to introduce criminal penalties for insulting the Russian national anthem, and the corresponding bill is being drafted at this time.

In late May, it was reported that the Leninsky District Court of Omsk sentenced 18-year-old Alexander Razhin, a student of the Omsk Transportation University, to 120 hours of community service under Part 1 of Article 282. Razhin, under a nickname, posted a comment on a social network regarding the news of the cancellation of the Marilyn Manson concert in Omsk due to pressure from Orthodox activists in June 2014. The comment was qualified by the linguistic expertise as containing “the signs of humiliation of dignity of a group of people (Orthodox Christians - ed.) on religious grounds. As we have stated before, we believe that humiliation, being an act of minor gravity, should be removed from the Criminal Code.

In late May, the Berdsk City Court in the Novosibirsk Region delivered a guilty verdict to Maxim Kormelitsky, who had published on his VKontakte page a photograph “depicting people bathing in the ice-hole” accompanied by an insulting caption. The case was initiated upon a petition from Orthodox activist Yury Zadoya. The court found Kormelitsky guilty of inciting religious hatred under Article 282 Part 1 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to a year in a penal colony, and added three more month to the punishment, since he had previously received a suspended sentence (Kormelitsky had a number of previous convictions and another case against him is currently under investigation). We are familiar with the image (photo with the caption), for which Kormelitsky was sentenced. From our point of view, it posed no danger and did not merit criminal prosecution.

In Korsakov of the Sakhalin Region, the local branch of the Investigative Committee of the RF opened a criminal case against a local resident under Part 1 of Article 282. He is accused of inciting religious hatred by distribution of prohibited brochures Svidetelstvo ISUS-KHRISTOVO [The Testament of Jesus Christ] in a hallway of an apartment building. In our view, this Jehovah’s Witnesses brochure is intended to assert the truthfulness of the version of Christianity, revealed to its author, and the falsity of all other denominations. We view its prohibition and prosecution for its dissemination as inappropriate, because, according to the Supreme Court, propaganda of the superiority of one’s own religion over the others cannot be regarded as incitement to hatred, and the text contains no incitement to violence.

The Sovetsky District Court of Chelyabinsk sentenced a local resident Yakov Tselyuk in mid- May to two years' imprisonment followed by a two-year probationary period and restriction of freedom for one year under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code, finding him guilty of involvement in activities of the banned religious organization Nurcular. According to the investigators, Tselyuk had converted to Islam and, in the period from November 2012 to February 2013, was engaged in online distribution of the audiobooks by Said Nursi, one of which had been recognized as extremist. He also shared on a social network seven posts that contained quotations from prohibited books. The case was heard using a special procedure, since Tselyuk fully admitted his guilt. We regard as inappropriate both the prohibition of books by Turkish theologian Said Nursi and the ban of Nurcular association, which have never even existed in Russia; there are only individual believers, who study the heritage of Nursi and face unjustified persecution.

We learned in May, that, in mid-March, Andrey Dedkov and Andrey Rekst were detained and later arrested in Krasnoyarsk. Both faced criminal charges: Dedkov – under Part 1, and Rekst - under Part 2 of Article 282.2. They were also accused of being involved in Nurcular activities. Currently, Dedkov remains in pre-trial detention; Rekst was released on bail. According to the investigators, Dedkov “organized a Nurcular cell,” arranged religious meetings in private apartments, where he discussed Nursi books with other believers and taught the ways to distribute them from May 2015 until March 2016, while Rekst participated in these activities.

In mid-May, four suspects - Remzi Memetov, Zevri Abseitov, Rustem Abiltarov and Enver Mamutov - were detained and then arrested in Bakhchisarai for alleged participation in the banned religious party Hizb ut-Tahrir. The criminal case under Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of a terrorist organization) has been initiated against three of them; the remaining one faces charges under Part 1 of Article 205.5 (organizing the activity of such an organization). We would like to remind here that we view prosecution of Hizb ut-Tahrir members under anti-terrorist legislation merely on the basis of their party activities (meetings, reading literature, etc.) as inappropriate.

Administrative Prosecution

According to our information, two people faced inappropriate charges under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code for displaying Nazi symbols in the absence of propaganda intent in May 2016. The director of a shopping center in Blagoveshchensk (the Amur Region) was fined four thousand rubles, because the holiday poster for February 23, displayed in his shopping center, featured German tanks and FW-190 aircraft; such incidents happen all over the country due to negligence of the designers. In the Kemerovo Region, a court fined Alexander Khmelev, the pastor of the Association of Christian Eucharistic Communities, 1,000 rubles for his publication on VKontakte, which featured the swastika. As explained by the priest himself, the images he published, indeed, contained the swastika, but his posts were about “those who went from Russia to fight in the Donbass, who were caught in Lugansk and Donetsk with tattoos of Nazi symbols, that is, precisely, about the harm of such symbols and their carriers.”

In May we learned that one person faced charges under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for distribution of materials which we believe to be banned inappropriately. Illgar Guseynov, imam of Mirmamed Mosque in Chapayevsk (Samara Region), was fined 3,000 rubles for disseminating a book of prayers entitled Fortress of the Muslim, deemed extremist without any grounds. It was not the first time Guseynov was inappropriately fined under Article 20.29.

In the city of Neryungri (Republic of Sakha -Yakutia), three school principals were fined under Article 6.17 Part 1 of the Administrative Code (violation of requirements for disseminating among children informational products containing information harmful to their health and (or) development). An audit by the City Prosecutor's Office had revealed that students of these schools could access extremist materials on the Internet. We believe that content-filtering software tends to be inefficient, and school personnel should not be held accountable for it.

An owner of the Cube anti-kafe in Volsk, the Saratov Region, was charged under Article 6.17 Part 2 of the Administrative Code (failure to utilize, by a person organizing access to information disseminated through information and telecommunication networks in places accessible to children, technical measures, software and hardware protection of children from information harmful to their health and (or) development) for providing Internet access without a content filter. We oppose prosecutions against the administrators of cafes, Internet cafes, hotels and similar establishments for lack of content filtering, since they service not only children (supervised by the parents), but also adult users, whose rights should not be limited .

Banning Organizations as Extremist and Other State Actions

In mid-May, the Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Justice in the Oryol Region submitted a claim to the regional court seeking liquidation of Oryol, the local religious Jehovah's Witnesses organization, for extremist activity. On the same day, it suspended the activities of this organization, pending the Court's decision regarding its liquidation. In addition, two local Jehovah's Witnesses organizations, in Serov (the Sverdlovsk Region) and in Tikhoretsk (the Krasnodar Region) - failed to overturn the warning they had received about the impermissibility of extremist activity; this, they face the risk of liquidation. We would like to repeat that we consider attempts to liquidate Jehovah's Witnesses organizations for extremism, prosecution against members of their communities and bans on their texts as religious discrimination.

In late May, Crimean journalist Lilya Budzhurova announced that she had received from the Simferopol Prosecutor's Office a warning about the impermissibility of violations of the legislation on countering extremist activities and legislation on mass media. The document stated that Budzhurova urged the Crimean Tatars to engage in protests and attempted to incite ethnic and religious hatred and enmity via Facebook and on the Center for Investigative Journalism website. In our opinion, the journalist’s statements, as described in the warning, contained no attacks against any ethnic or religious groups, no calls for illegal actions and even no hints at the possibility of such actions - on the contrary, Budzhurova emphasized that the protest should be conducted by legal means. The incriminating text on the Center for Investigative Journalism website contains only a call for creating an aid fund for the children of the arrested Crimean Muslims. Thus, a warning, issued to Budzhurova, was inappropriate.