The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in September 2016.
Lawmaking
In early September 2016, in the midst of the election campaign, deputies Valery Rashkin and Sergey Obukhov of the Communist Party introduced a bill in the State Duma seeking to add to the Criminal Code a new article on insulting the feelings of war veterans. The first part of the proposed article refers to “deliberate distortion of information about the Great Patriotic War ... or demeaning or belittling the heroism of the Armed Forces of the USSR” (except in the cases provided for in Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code on rehabilitation of Nazism), committed with intent to insult the veterans; the second part is devoted to “dismantling, destruction of or damage to monuments of the Great Patriotic War,” and the third part covers the same acts committed using official position or by repeat offenders under this article. The deputies proposed hefty fines, mandatory, corrective or compulsory labor as punishments. In their reviews of the draft bill, the Supreme Court and the government of Russia indicated that destruction of monuments could be qualified under a number of existing Criminal Code articles, and the first part failed to provide a precise definition of the crime. We can add that the content of the proposed article largely duplicates current Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code and that both proposed and existing articles clearly constrain historical discussion and threaten freedom of expression.
The Constitutional Court of Russia issued a determination made on the basis of a complaint by the Barnaul opposition activist Anton Podchasov against the implementation mechanism of the Rosfinmonitoring List. In accordance with the law “On counteraction to legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and financing of terrorism,” Rosfinmonitoring adds persons and organizations involved in extremist activity (or even suspected of such activities), to a special list. Subsequently, banks must block their account and financial operations. The court dismissed Podchasov’s complaint, stating that this measure was merely preventive and not implying property loss, that it was only used temporarily and could be appealed in court. In addition, the Court indicated that persons on the list maintained their right to use their social compensations, were not limited in their payment of taxes, fines and compulsory payments, and could spend up to 10 thousand rubles per month per family member from their salaries to cover their needs. We regard blocking accounts and financial transactions of defendants in extremism-related cases as an extremely harsh measure; keeping track of the accounts that belong to “extremists” would have been sufficient. In addition, we believe that such sanctions against suspected offenders contradict the principle of presumption of innocence.
Criminal Prosecution
Yekaterinburg blogger Ruslan Sokolovsky was prosecuted under Article 282 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred) and Part 2 Article 148 of the Criminal Code (insulting the feelings of believers in places of worship) in early September. He was arrested, but then the regional court changed his confinement to house arrest. Sokolovsky was prosecuted for three videos he had published. In one of them, the blogger plays Pokémon Go on his phone in an Russian Orthodox church, in another one he comments on the story of catching Pokémon, in the third one, he talks about the article, “If you want to get married, you should not just sigh about it, but get prepared,” published on the Moscow Patriarchate website. The second and third videos contain abundant profanity and degrading characterizations of religion in general, as well as of Russian Orthodoxy and the Orthodox believers, however, videos contain no dangerous incitement. We believe that humiliation of dignity should be taken out of Article 282 and moved to the Administrative Code, as it does not pose a serious danger to society. Application of Article 148 of the Criminal Code in connection with catching Pokémon in a church is completely inappropriate – church attendees did not notice the blogger’s actions and certainly did not suffer from them; there was no damage inflicted on ceremonial objects, while the video does not infringe on the sacred space.
Rapper David Nuriyev, also known as Ptakha [Bird], became a defendant in a criminal case for incitement to hatred or animosity against “a group of people, united on the basis of “assisting law enforcement authorities in the investigation and apprehension of criminals” or being representatives of Antidiller community organization” (Article 282 Part 1) in Moscow. The case is related to Ptakha’s speech about Antidiller movement, made on September 23, 2015 in the 16 Ton club. The rapper is under travel restrictions. We view prosecution of Nuriyev on the grounds of this speech as inappropriate – it does contain insults against activists of Antidiller and calls to illegal actions (damage to their property), but no incitement to violence. In addition, we believe that “persons assisting law enforcement authorities” do not constitute a vulnerable social group that requires protection under anti-extremist legislation. We are convinced that the vague concept of “social group” – known to be frequently misused – should be excluded from anti-extremist articles of the Criminal Code.
Investigators in Tula reported that they had completed the investigation pertaining to a 29-year-old local resident charged under Part 1, Article 282. According to the investigators, he posted on his VKontakte page 10 items “humiliating dignity of the veterans of the Great Patriotic War and the soldiers of the Red Army,” and justifying the ideology of Nazi Germany. We doubt the appropriateness of recognizing war veterans and soldiers of the Red Army as vulnerable social groups in need of protection under anti-extremist legislation.
Persecution of Hizb ut-Tahrir followers continued as well. In early September, four Sevastopol Muslims received their sentences: Ruslan Zeitullaev was convicted under Article. 205.5 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (organizing activities of a terrorist organization) and sentenced by the North Caucasus District Military Court to seven years in a minimum security penal colony, and Ferat Saifullaev, Rustem Vaitov and Yuri (Nuri) Primov were each sentenced to five years in a minimum security penal colony under Article 205.5 Part 2 (participation in a terrorist organization).
In late September, the Moscow District Military Court issued a verdict in the case of Abdulaziz Usmonov, a citizen of Tajikistan. He was found guilty under Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to four years and four months imprisonment in a minimum security penal colony.
In late September, it was reported that a case of a Hizb ut-Tahrir follower from Nizhnevartovsk had been forwarded to court; he was charged not only under Article 205.5 Part 2, but also under Article 282 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred). According to the investigation, in addition to participating in the activities of the banned organization, he also posted xenophobic videos on a social network (according to different sources, they were directed either against members of a particular ethnicity or against the police and the Christians).
Around the same time, investigators announced that a criminal investigation under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 205.5 has been open against eight residents of Tatarstan: Edgorzhon Abdumuminov, Ilnar Valiullin, Kamil Mikhailov, Marat and Renat Shammasov, Marat Davletshin, Zulfat Safin and Bulat Makhmutov. They are accused of creating a Hizb ut-Tahrir cells in Zelenodolsky District of the republic and of participating in it.
We view prosecution against Hizb ut-Tahrir members under the anti-terrorist articles solely on the basis of their party involvement (meetings, reading literature, etc.) as inappropriate.
Administrative Prosecution and Banning Organizations as Extremist
Jehovah's Witnesses also traditionally attracted the law enforcement attention during the review period. In early September, the General Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of Russia for the Khabarovsk Territory and the Jewish Autonomous Region suspended the activities of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Birobidzhan and filed a lawsuit seeking its liquidation for extremist activity. Earlier this year, the community leader was fined under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (mass distribution of extremist materials) after ten banned books had been found on the premises of the organization. It was at least the second fine imposed on the head of the community, while the Birobidzhan organization of Jehovah's Witnesses received warnings about the impermissibility of extremist activity in 2014 and 2015.
It was reported in early September, that the prosecutor's office issued a warning about the impermissibility of extremist activity to a Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Novorossiysk. This happened after a member of the community had been fined under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code.
The community of Jehovah's Witnesses of Saransk received a similar warning in late September; it had been previously fined 100 thousand rubles for possession of extremist materials intended for mass distribution. We view bans against Jehovah's Witnesses materials, prosecution of believers for the distribution of such materials, and elimination of Jehovah's Witnesses organizations for extremist activity as inappropriate.
Inappropriate prosecution of Muslims continued as well. In mid-September, it was reported that the Samara Regional Court ruled in July to liquidate the Mirmamed’s Mosque religious community in Chapaevsk for extremist activities, and now the believers are appealing this decision in the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the mosque's imam, Ilgar Guseinov received a warning about the impermissibility of extremist activity and then was fined twice under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code - first for publishing on a social network the banned film The Miracles of the Quran, and next for keeping the collection of prayers Fortress of the Muslim in the mosque with intent to distribute. We consider both bans inappropriate, and therefore the decision to ban the religious group is, in our opinion, inappropriate as well.
A resident of Chudovo, the Novgorod Region, was fined two thousand rubles under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code in September for distribution of the above-mentioned Fortress of the Muslim.
Ravshan Sullaimonov, a citizen of Tajikistan, was fined one thousand rubles under the same article in Irkutsk in late September for publishing on VKontakte a video of Chuzhdye [Aliens] - a lecture by Islamic preacher Khalid Yasin, recognized as extremist in 2012. In our opinion, the video was banned inappropriately – even though the lecturer addresses the contrast between Islamic religiosity and temptations of the modern world and Western civilization, he does not advocate violence as the way of conflict's resolution.
Leaders of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People Ali Khamzin and Ilmi Umerov faced administrative responsibility in the form of fines in Bakhchisarai in late September. They were found guilty of participating in the activities of the community association, whose activities were suspended (Article 20.28 Part 1 of the Administrative Code). At the same time, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea on recognizing the Mejlis as an extremist organization. We believe that the organization’s activities provide no justification for the ban, and prohibition has been dictated by political motives. In our view, this decision is not only inappropriate but also politically reckless, since it could potentially provoke an aggravation of ethnic tensions on the peninsula.
In late September, the police interrupted the meeting of the followers of Chinese Falun Gong spiritual practice, held in the Moscow Region. The report under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (public display of Nazi symbols) was compiled against the event organizers. From our perspective, the persecution of Falun Gong under this article is inappropriate; the emblem of the spiritual practice includes a sign resembling the Nazi swastika, but pointing in the opposite direction. In general, the swastika is a common solar symbol in the East, and emblem of Falun Gong has no relation to European Nazism.
Several additional cases of misuse of Article 20.3 were reported in September. A person, selling a 1940 German helmet, who had placed its photo on the online bulletin board, was fined one thousand rubles in Sochi under this article, with confiscation of the offending item. We believe that this article should apply not to antique dealers, but to modern producers and distributors of items with Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols; confiscation and, especially, destruction of historical items are counterproductive.
Parnas (the People's Freedom Party) activist Yevgeny Bakhotsky of Krasnoyarsk reported the fact of his prosecution under Article 20.3 for publishing on a social network collages depicting Vladimir Putin wearing SS uniform and Putin with Hitler’s mustache and the caption “Get out of Ukraine.” If the information, given by the activist, contains no substantial omissions, then, in our opinion, the prosecution is inappropriate. We advocate taking the context of displayed Nazi symbols into account, and in this case, the purpose of propaganda of Nazi ideology was absent.
The Chernsky District Court in the Tula Region fined local resident Ilkin Nurakhmedov two thousand rubles for publishing on VKontakte “The Truth about ISIS” video, which contained the symbols of this banned organization. None of the videos, found on the Internet under this title, are Islamic state propaganda videos, and all other materials published on Nurakhmedov’s social network page are definitely not relevant to Islamist propaganda. We believe that demonstration of the symbols of banned organizations should be subject to prosecution only in the cases when such symbols are used to promote their activities, so we view the prosecution against Nurakhmedov as inappropriate.
