Lawmaking

On January 25, the State Duma adopted a law changing the procedure for recognizing materials as extremist. After these changes are approved by the Federation Council and signed by the president, the courts of the Federation’s constituent entities will consider cases of declaring materials extremist, and copyright holders, publishers, authors of works and (or) translations of materials, if they are known, will be involved in the process. They will be interested parties rather than defendants and thus will incur no legal costs unless their actions “caused” the claim. If the claim pertains to a publication of a “religious nature,” the court will need to involve an expert “with special knowledge of the relevant religion.” In our opinion, all these provisions of the bill are justified. However, in general, we also believe that problems with the composition and use of the Federal List of Extremist Materials will remain, since the very mechanism for recognizing materials as extremist is ineffective.

On the same day, the State Duma adopted in the first reading two bills submitted to parliament on December 7. They are aimed at countering online broadcasts of illegal violent actions and calls for such actions. Primarily, the legislation targets trash-streaming, but in fact, they are not the only materials that can fall under the proposed wording. The first bill introduces a new aggravating circumstance into the Criminal Code (CC) (clause “s” of Article 63 Part 1) worded as follows: “committing an intentional crime with its public demonstration, including in the media or information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet).” The same formula is proposed as a qualifying feature for many intentional violent crimes. At the same time, the proposal allows for imposing an additional punishment in the form of the loss of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years in most of the relevant articles of the CC. We support this bill since public displays of violence can – or even should – be considered an aggravating circumstance.

The second bill introduces a ban in the sphere of mass media, namely a new Part 12 of Article 13.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO): “Illegal distribution of information on telecommunication networks, including the Internet, of photos and videos depicting illegal acts committed with cruelty, their consequences, calls to commit such acts for material gain or hooligan motives, as well as actions motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred or enmity, or by hatred or enmity against any social group, is prohibited unless these actions constitute a criminal offense.” Sanctions for citizens and officials involve fines of up to 700 thousand rubles “with confiscation of equipment used for production of such materials.”

The new part of the article is accompanied by an important note that it does not apply to “works of science, literature, or art that have historical, artistic or cultural value, materials by registered media, as well as photographic and video materials intended for academic or medical purposes, or for research using the funds provided for by federal state educational standards and federal educational programs.”

This bill raises some doubts. First, the word “illegal” at the beginning of the proposed formula is unclear and will inevitably produce controversy and abuse. We believe that public display of violence can be an administrative offense, if the material in question contains, at the very least, an approval of such violence. If this consideration is taken into account, the word “illegal” becomes unnecessary. Obviously, if these changes are made, the list of exceptions included in the note be unnecessary or will require revision. The particularly alarming part of the note is the clause stipulating that works of science, literature, and art must possess historical, artistic, or cultural value. However, it remains unclear who and how this value will be determined, especially in the context of a rapid trial for an administrative offense.

Along with these bills, as part of the fight against trash-streaming, amendments were also submitted to the Duma on December 7 regarding extrajudicial blocking of Internet resources. Deputies proposed adding a new item to the list of information prohibited for distribution and subject to restrictions: “photos and videos depicting illegal acts committed with cruelty, their consequences, or calls for the commission of these acts.” We think this bill is fundamentally misguided. The third bill has not yet been considered in the first reading.

On January 31, the State Duma adopted in the second and third readings a bill introduced only on January 22 and aiming to expand the list of crimes, commission of which entails confiscation of property as well as loss of titles and awards.

The bill changes Article 280.4 Part 2 CC (public calls for activities directed against the state security), adding qualifying signs for committing a crime for mercenary reasons (clause “d”) and “based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or hatred or enmity against any social group” (clause “e”).

Next, the bill modifies Article 48 CC, which allows for depriving individuals convicted of committing grave or especially grave crimes of their special, military, or honorary titles, class rank, and state awards. With the proposed changes, the court will also have the authority to revoke titles and awards for individuals convicted of non-grave crimes covered by Article 207.3 Part 1, Article 280, Article 280.1, Article 280.3 Part 1, Article 280.4 Part 1, Article 282 Part 1, Article 282.4, Article 284.1 Parts 1 and 2, Article 284.2, Article 284.3, and Article 354.1 CC.

Finally, the amendments expand the list of situations in which property is confiscated from convicted offenders (Article 104.1 CC). On the one hand, the list now includes the property obtained as a result of committing crimes under Article 207.3 and Article 280.4 CC – but only in cases where these crimes were committed for material gain. On the other hand, property used or received for activities directed against the state security will also be subject to confiscation. Furthermore, changes to the Criminal-Procedural Code allow courts to arrest such property in the course of an investigation. The final version of the law moves the list of crimes, the commission of which is understood as activity against state security, from Article 280.4 to Article 104.1 CC and expands it adding new articles on sabotage.

If the property subject to confiscation has been sold by the time of the verdict, the corresponding amount of money may be confiscated. If the convicted offender does not have sufficient monetary funds, the penalty can be applied to other property, excluding primary residence, household items, etc.

On January 12, two deputies representing the New People (Novye Lyudi) faction, Vladislav Davankov, and Ksenia Goryacheva, submitted to the parliament a bill amending Article 20.3.1 and 20.3.3 CAO. They proposed to supplement Article 20.3.1 CAO on incitement to hatred and Article 20.3.3 CAO on discrediting the use of the armed forces with notes that exclude reactions to social network posts from the scope of these two articles. In the explanatory note, the authors note that recently there has been an increase in administrative liability cases under these norms for reactions (“likes”) to publications on the Internet. The bill’s authors point out that they do not have the corresponding statistics and instead cite several specific cases, in which sanctions were imposed on users of the social network Odnoklassniki. We believe that, given current legislation and enforcement practices, this initiative may affect only a very small number of cases. According to SOVA Center’s monitoring data, prosecution for “likes” is uncommon and has affected almost exclusively Odnoklassniki users. On this social network, a “class” reaction to a post means that it is automatically shared in one’s feed. The social network finally recognized the risks associated with this rating system and introduced an option that allows users to hide their reactions from other users, except for the authors of the content in question.

On January 16, a group of State Duma deputies from various factions introduced a bill to expand the grounds for the deprivation of acquired citizenship. The proposed amendment targets Article 24 of the Federal Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation,” which currently allows the termination of acquired citizenship for specific listed crimes. The deputies aim to broaden the scope of this article to encompass all intentional grave and especially grave crimes, including those less severe offenses already mentioned in the norm. It is important to note that the list of grounds for losing acquired citizenship was recently expanded with the enactment of the new Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation” in October 2023. In our view, some of the criminal articles leading to citizenship loss should never have been introduced in the first place, while others exhibit serious flaws in their wording, and some are frequently applied inappropriately. Additionally, we contend that many of these crimes do not pose a sufficient danger to society to justify the loss of citizenship upon their commission.

Sanctions for Anti-Government Statements and Activities

Justifying Terrorism

On January 11, Left Front coordinator Sergei Udaltsov was detained in Moscow. As it turned out, a criminal case was opened against him under Article 205.2 Part 2 CC for justification of terrorism. His home was searched, and the next day he was placed in pre-trial detention. The case was based on certain posts on the politician’s Telegram channel, in which he expressed his outrage at the criminal prosecution against a group of Marxists from Ufa arrested in March 2022. Five activists face charges of creating a terrorist community, participating in it, promoting and justifying terrorism, preparing a violent seizure of power, as well as group theft of weapons and ammunition. The Central District Military Court is considering the case. Indeed, Udaltsov wrote about this case repeatedly on his channel. He characterized the charges brought against members of the group as absurd (in his opinion, the investigation construed the study of Marxism as terrorism) and informed his readers about pickets and petitions in support of the defendants, as well as fundraising initiatives to provide them with legal assistance and parcel delivery. Notably, Udaltsov's statements did not endorse any violent activity; he simply expressed his belief that the case against the activists was unfounded. It is worth recalling that, according to the note to Article 205.2 CC, the public justification of terrorism is defined as “a public statement recognizing the ideology and practice of terrorism as correct, in need of support and imitation.”

Calls for Extremist Activities

On January 25, the Moscow City Court sentenced Igor Strelkov (real name Igor Girkin) – a popular military blogger and former Minister of Defense of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) to four years in a minimum-security penal colony under Article 280 Part 2 CC (calls for extremist activity on the Internet). In addition to the main punishment, he was also banned from administering Internet resources for three years. Strelkov, a founder of the “Angry Patriots’ Club,” was one of the most ardent critics of the way the special military operation has been conducted, despite viewing it as necessary. Specifically, he stated that its goals have been set too narrowly. The criminal case against him was based on his Telegram post dated May 22, 2022. The post, read by over 432 thousand people, discussed the non-payment of salaries to soldiers of the 105th and 107th regiments of the DPR Armed Forces. Strelkov wrote that an “execution is not enough to punish those responsible for such situations.” We believe that in his emotional post about non-payments to soldiers, Strelkov expressed himself figuratively. It is unlikely that his words could be regarded as a call to shoot people, even taking his combat experience and wide audience into account. Therefore, we classify this verdict as inappropriate.

On January 17, the Nazarovo City Court of Krasnoyarsk Krai returned to the prosecutor the criminal case initiated under Article 280 Part 2 CC against Yevgeny Brigida, a resident of Glyaden in Nazarovo District). The case against Brigida was based on a video he posted on VKontakte in September 2022, in the first days of mobilization. Then the Nazarovo draft officer Oleg Tikhonchuk told a local TV channel that everyone was subject to mobilization except those convicted of serious crimes and those who had an exemption. This statement caused widespread outrage and was discussed on central television, with anchor Vladimir Solovyov suggesting that such statements should be punished by execution. Brigida published a video on his VKontakte page, in which he quoted Solovyov mentioning two local officials involved in the draft effort, who came with a military summons for his son. In Brigida’s opinion, his son was not subject to mobilization (ultimately, he was not drafted). The poster added that in case the draft officers visit them again, he will defend his home and family until his last breath, and they will “not fare well.” The case against Brigida was filed in February 2023. The court returned the case to the prosecutor pointing out that “the indictment does not contain the motives, the crime’s goals that motivated the defendant, the form of his guilt, and the type of intent, if existing. Establishing the extent is mandatory in cases related to extremism.” We also believe that Brigida did not call for extremist activities – his statements targeted two specific officials, and the only issue worth considering is whether he made credible threats against them.

Disorderly Conduct Motivated by Hatred

On January 29, the Tsentralny District Court of Omsk sentenced Artyom Lazarenko to 240 hours of community service under paragraph “b” of Article 213 Part 1 CC (hooliganism motivated by hatred of a social group). He was found guilty of the following action: on the night of September 9, 2023, while standing in front of the FSB building, he “took off all his clothes” and “began to demonstrate his naked body,” thereby “grossly violating public order.” The investigation decided that he acted out of hatred towards law enforcement officers. We consider Lazarenko's sentence under Article 213 CC inappropriate. First, neither FSB officers nor government officials in general should be considered vulnerable social groups in need of special protection from manifestations of hatred. Next, Lazarenko's actions committed at night can hardly be regarded as a gross violation of public order, since they did not violate the public right to work and leisure, the work of institutions, etc. In our opinion, law enforcement officers in this case should have limited their actions to compiling an administrative report under Article 20.1 CAO (disorderly conduct).

Vandalism Motivated by Hatred

In early February, it became known that a magistrate of Judicial District No. 2 of the Central Judicial District of Novokuznetsk sentenced local retiree Raisa Mikhalyova to a year and two months of restriction of freedom. Apparently, the verdict was pronounced on January 22. She was found guilty under Article 214 Part 2 CC (vandalism motivated by political hatred). The retiree’s case was based on anti-war slogans she wrote with a marker on the walls of front lobbies and elevator lobbies, as well as on garbage chutes and heating radiators in Novokuznetsk in December 2022.

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

According to the Mediazona portal, as of January 22, the total number of cases received by Russian courts under Article 20.3.3 from the moment of its introduction into the CAO has reached 8,693. The December data indicated 8526 such cases, that is, their number increased by 167 in one month.

On January 15, the Abakan City Court of the Republic of Khakassia returned to the prosecutor the case of 65-year-old Tatyana Korbut charged under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC. The reasons for criminal charges against the retiree have not been reported. In May 2022, she was fined 15 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for several VKontakte posts criticizing the actions of the Russian army.

On January 29, as part of the re-investigation of the case under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC against Oleg Orlov, co-chair of the Memorial Human Rights Center, the defendant faced new charges. According to the investigation, he had committed a crime motivated by “ideological enmity towards traditional spiritual, moral and patriotic values,” as well as hatred of the social group “military personnel.” It is worth reminding that the case against Orlov was based on his Facebook post of November 14, 2022. The post contained the Russian text of Orlov’s article “They Wanted Fascism. They Got It,” previously published in French by Mediapart. On October 11, 2023, the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow sentenced Orlov to a fine of 150 thousand rubles. The prosecution appealed this verdict, demanding a tougher punishment. During the appeal hearing in the Moscow City Court, a representative of the prosecutor's office suddenly asked to return the case to the prosecutors altogether, so that the investigation could establish a motive for the crime. The court granted this request overturning the sentence imposed on Orlov. The new version of the charges, which takes into account the motives of hatred and enmity, is puzzling. We believe, first, that military personnel should not be considered a vulnerable group in need of special protection from acts of hatred. Next, we view the use of the ideological enmity motive in the charges of discrediting the army as unfounded in principle. It is obvious that people, who oppose the special operation in Ukraine, disagree with the official course ideologically and politically. Thus, such statements constitute peaceful political criticism. Moreover, enmity is traditionally understood as the opposition between two groups of people, and not between an individual and a certain set of values. In and of itself, speech that condemns ideas should not be limited in a democratic society, because these very statements constitute public discussion. The clarification that the defendant’s enmity was directed against traditional spiritual, moral, and patriotic values, provided by the investigation in the Orlov case, actually confirmed that he faced charges for speaking out against a certain ideology.

“Fakes about the Army” Motivated by Hatred

We consider sanctions under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC (dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the Russian army on the grounds of political hatred) inappropriate unless the imputed statements contain calls to violence. 

Displaying Banned Symbols

On January 9, the Yoshkar-Ola City Court of Mari El fined Olga Starikova one thousand rubles for placing white-blue-white flag stickers on her car license plates. Starikova stated that one of the flag’s stripes had previously been red and faded under the ultraviolet rays of the sun, but the court examined the frames and rejected this argument. The court also recognized these frames as the subject of an administrative offense and ordered their confiscation.

Let us note that on January 18, the Ministry of Justice began to publish a list of organizations specified in Article 6 Parts 3 and 4 of the federal law “On Immortalization of the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War,” that is, organizations that collaborated with Nazi Germany and its allies during the Second World War, also indicating the attributes and symbols of these organizations. The list included the symbols and slogans of four Ukrainian organizations (no other organizations are on this list for now) and can be used as a formal basis for applying Article 20.3 CAO for displaying a tryzub (trident) or the slogans “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to the Heroes.”

Among other cases, we would like to mention the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Vladivostok, which, on January 24, fined Oleg Saferbekov 90 thousand rubles under Article 20.1 Part 3 CAO for his stream on VKontakte, during which he made rude statements about the Russian authorities, military personnel, and FSB officers, also mentioning the Ukrainian slogan.

Organized Anti-Government Activities

On January 11, the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk issued a three-year suspended sentence to Polina Piskeeva under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC (participating in the activities of an extremist organization) with an additional eight months of restriction of freedom. In the summer and fall of 2023, the activist posted around the city anti-war leaflets of the banned movement Vesna recognized as extremist. The leaflets contained criticism of the mobilization and activities of the United Russia party. Piskeeva was also charged under Article 310 CC (disclosure of preliminary investigation data), but the court acquitted her of this charge.

On January 23, we were informed that a criminal case had been opened against Yevgeny Molotov, a lawyer and an activist from Vologda, under Article 282.3 CC (financing extremist activities). On January 25, he was placed in pre-trial detention. The criminal case was based on a monetary donation of one thousand rubles transferred to the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) on August 5, 2021 – the day after the court decision to ban the fund entered into legal force. Another similar case was opened in the Saratov region on January 25. The suspect was Ravil Iskaliev from the village of Leninsky in Novouzensky District. According to investigators, Iskaliev transferred only 200 rubles to the FBK.

On January 29, it was reported that the Basmanny District Court of Moscow arrested four associates of Alexei Navalny in absentia: the head of FBK Maria Pevchikh, Popular Politics anchors Dmitry Nizovtsev and Kira Yarmysh, as well as Anna Biryukova, the head of the FBK sociological service. Pevchikh faces charges of organizing the activities of an extremist community using her official position (Article 282.1 Part 3 CC), the others are charged with participating in such a community (Article 282.1 Part 2 CC). The oppositionists face prosecution under this article for their involvement in Alexei Navalny’s structures. In addition, Yarmysh, Pevchikh, and Nizovtsev are charged with spreading “fakes” about the army by a group of people motivated by political hatred (paragraphs “b,” “e,” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC), and Biryukova is charged with justifying terrorism on the Internet (Article 205.2 Part 2 CC). The statements made by the activists on the Popular Politics YouTube channel formed the grounds for their cases, but the exact contents of the incriminating statements are unknown. Separately, the head of FBK is also accused of vandalism motivated by political hatred (Article 214 Part 2 CC); the specific grounds for this case are also unknown. Previously, Alexei Navalny personally was charged under the same article.

On January 31, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling on Ukraine’s claim of violation by Russia of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Having recognized a number of violations by Russia, the court nevertheless found the assertion that Russia’s actions towards the Crimean Tatars constitute ethnic discrimination unproven. Thus, according to the UN court, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people was recognized as an extremist organization, and its leaders faced persecution for their political position, associated with opposing the inclusion of Crimea into Russia, and not because of their ethnicity. The same applies to the persecution in Crimea of followers of the radical Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir, recognized as a terrorist organization in Russia, and followers of the Tablighi Jamaat movement, recognized as extremist. Russia stated that all these activities were based on the provisions of Russian law and pursued legitimate goals. According to the court, in some cases, these references to the legislation can be regarded as mere pretexts for sanctions against individuals, whom Russia considers a threat to its national security based on their religious or political affiliation, but Ukraine provided no sufficient evidence of specifically ethnic discrimination against the Crimean Tatars.

Fighting for Tolerance, Protecting Historical Memory and “Traditional Values”

Countering Hate Speech

It was reported on January 7 that a criminal case had been opened in Moscow under paragraph “c” of Article 282 Part 2 CC (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity, committed by a group of persons) against blogger Rajabzoda Salmon Jumaboy (nickname Salmon Kein), a native of Tajikistan. On January 19, the Simonovsky court placed him under house arrest. The case against him was based on his post with a video “containing signs of humiliation of the human dignity of girls of Slavic appearance.” The specific problematic video cannot be identified based on the Investigative Committee’s statement, since several videos of the blogger appeared on Telegram channels. We are not convinced that this case was opened appropriately. Most likely, the law enforcement claims are related to the video about a spontaneous “wedding” on Arbat (in which another blogger jokingly “marries” Jumaboy with a passerby) posted on December 9, but we found no signs of inciting hatred or humiliating the dignity of Slavic women. Jumaboy’s actions can only be described as offensive harassment of citizens, that is, disorderly conduct (Article 20.1 Part 1 CAO).

On January 18, a criminal case under the same paragraph of the same article was brought against Usman Baratov, the head of the Vatandosh Interregional Uzbek Community (Mezhregionalnoe Uzbekskoe Zemlyachestvo “Vatandosh”); the next day, he was placed in pre-trial detention. The case was based on Baratov’s post on Odnoklassniki dated December 17, 2023, in which he commented on the news about rising egg prices in Russia by posting an image of hens with the caption: “No fucking eggs for you! Bring back the cocks from the front.” The post was recognized as an insult against the special military operation participants. The complaints from users of “Z-channels” on Telegram were brought to the attention of Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Investigative Committee, who ordered the opening of a criminal case. His order was followed on January 18. In our opinion, Baratov’s statement does not characterize special military operation participants in any way, let alone contain any aggressive calls against them. The grounds for the charge of inciting hatred by a group of people are also unclear, given that the image was posted on Baratov’s personal page. However, this very qualification opened an opportunity for criminal prosecution under Article 282 CC rather than administrative charges under Article 20.3.1 CAO.

On January 17, the Baymaksky District Court of Bashkortostan announced the verdict against Fail Alsynov, the ex-chairman of the Bashkort – and organization banned in May 2020 for carrying out extremist activities. The court found him guilty under Article 282 Part 1 CC (incitement of national hatred or enmity) and sentenced him to four years in a minimum-security penal colony.

The case against Alsynov was based on a video of his speech in Bashkir posted on April 30, 2023 in the “Overheard Askarovo and Abzelilovsky District” VKontakte community. The activist addressed a rally on April 28 in the village of Ishmurzino of Baymaksky District that gathered to oppose plans to mine gold near the village. It follows from the case materials that the head of Bashkortostan, Radiy Khabirov, initiated the prosecution. The investigation found Alsynov’s speech to contain negative assessments of “residents of the Caucasus or Central Asia” and Armenians. Alsynov said at the gathering that the authorities were constantly fighting defenders of the Bashkirs and the Bashkir language, regarding them as extremists, just as the tsarist government fought Bashkir warriors. Meanwhile, he said, “outsiders,” including Armenians, are taking away Bashkirian lands, and the Bashkirs have nowhere to go from their land, while Armenians, Russians, and representatives of the “black people” can return “to their homelands.” The activist also called on the Bashkir people to unite and protect their lands. In our opinion, Alsynov’s words can be viewed as an expression of hostility towards newcomers and a call to limit their rights.

It is worth noting that criminal liability under Article 282 Part 1 CC follows after a sanction under the relevant administrative article 20.3.1 CAO on inciting hatred. In December 2022, Alsynov was fined 10 thousand rubles under this article for his post criticizing mobilization – in our opinion, inappropriately. Thus, if we interpret the activist’s statements at the rally as containing a call for discrimination on ethnic grounds, he could have faced administrative rather than criminal liability – especially since his statement included no direct calls for violence. Imprisonment seems an obviously disproportionate punishment in this case.

On the day the verdict was announced, a crowd of people (several thousand, according to some estimates) gathered near the courthouse. Once they learned of the punishment imposed on the activist, a spontaneous protest began, which quickly turned into a clash with law enforcement officials, who responded with tear gas. A criminal case was opened under Article 212 CC (organizing and participating in mass riots) and Article 318 CC (use of violence against an official representative), and subsequently dozens of people were placed under arrest.

Countering “Rehabilitation of Nazism” and Display of Nazi Symbols

As we learned in January, on December 5, 2023, the Pervomaisky District Court of Krasnodar sentenced Vladimir Yarotsky to one and a half years in a minimum-security penal colony under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (public desecration of symbols of Russian military glory, committed on the Internet). In May 2023, Yarotsky posted on his VKontakte page an image depicting Vladimir Putin wearing a bow tie in the St. George ribbon colors and a street artist painting his portrait. The artist’s painting, however, depicted not Putin but a penis with a similarly tied St. George’s ribbon. The image was captioned, “Smart people see that Putin is burying Russia alive, but fools are sure that he is saving it.” Yarotsky admitted his guilt and repented, so the case was considered under a special procedure – for some reason, in the district court, even though cases under Article 354.1 CC fall under the regional court’s jurisdiction. Evidently, the jurisdiction was violated.

It also turned out that the Alexandrovsky Interdistrict Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia for Stavropol Krai opened a criminal case under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (desecration of symbols of Russian military glory committed by a group of persons). The suspects were young people aged between 17 and 20. According to investigators, on December 27, the youngsters danced the “Gypsy Lezginka” near the Eternal Flame on the mass grave of those killed in the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars in the village of Grushevskoye. Furthermore, they were husking and eating sunflower seeds and discarding the husks onto the monument. We believe that the villagers’ behavior deserves condemnation, and they could be held administratively responsible for littering at the monument, but their act was insufficiently dangerous to society to warrant criminal sanctions.

It was reported on January 20 that in the Ryazan Region. a criminal case under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (distributing information on the Internet about the days of military glory of Russia expressing obvious disrespect for society) was opened against Maxim M. He was placed under travel restrictions. The law enforcement claims were based on three posts published by Maxim M. on VKontakte. In one of them, he called February 23 “a cursed day” and wondered from whom the Fatherland “whom no one attacks, but who constantly shoots towards its borders, and calls it anything but aggression” needs to be defended. In another post, he stated that Victory Day had long been discredited, and called it a day of memory and sorrow, which was turned into a “terrible orgy” and a “holiday of death.” In his opinion, the Russian authorities, back under Yeltsin, should have admitted that “the war had wiped out the best people, and had become a national catastrophe and degradation of the gene pool.” We are not familiar with the full texts of the Ryazan resident’s three posts. However, in our opinion, neither criticism of the ways of celebrating Victory Day, nor different interpretations or even deliberate distortions of historical facts should form a reason for criminal prosecution, unless they are accompanied by calls for violence, hatred, and discrimination. Maxim M.’s posts likely contained no such calls. The same considerations apply to his criticism of February 23, Defenders of the Fatherland Day.

On January 23, the Voronezh Regional Court returned to the prosecutor the criminal case of Christlover Godly Vegan (Khristolyub Bozhiy Vegan) charged under Article 354.1 CC and Article 148 Part 1 CC (insulting the feelings of believers). According to the court, the factual circumstances of the case indicated that there were grounds for classifying the defendant’s actions as a more serious crime (we wrote more about this case in our November review).

On January 13, the Mezhdurechensk City Court of the Kemerovo Region fined 19-year-old tattoo artist Dmitry Arkhipov one thousand rubles under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO. Allegedly, tattoos with Kolovrat were found among the examples of his work on his social network page. The court found this symbol confusingly similar to the Nazi swastika citing the decision of the Krasnoarmeisky District Court of Volgograd, which recognized “an image of a human figure whose right arm is extended in a traditional Nazi salute, with the presence of an image confusingly similar to Nazi symbols (Kolovrat) and the Celtic cross” (Item 947 of the Federal List of Extremist Materials) as extremist. We do not know whether the symbol published by Arkhipov is identical to the one that appeared in the Volgograd decision, but recognizing a particular image as extremist does not imply a ban on the display of all its components separately. A Kolovrat is a symbol common among pagans and easily distinguishable from the Nazi swastika. In addition, we believe that the display of Nazi symbols should be punished only in cases where it is used to promote the corresponding ideology. We have no information to confirm that Arkhipov advocated violence, hatred, and discrimination.

Countering the LGBT Movement

On January 18, we learned about the first case under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO, initiated in connection with displaying a rainbow flag as a symbol of the “international LGBT movement” recognized as extremist. A report was filed against a resident of the Saratov Region for posing photographs with a rainbow flag on Instagram. A law enforcement officer discovered them on December 13, 2023.

On January 31, even before a decision was made in this case, the Sormovsky District Court of Nizhny Novgorod placed Anastasia Yershova under arrest for five days under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO for wearing rainbow-decorated earrings. Earlier, a video recording of the incident appeared on the Telegram channel of Vladislav Pozdnyakov (the leader of the Male State, an organization, recognized as extremist by the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court), probably sent by his supporter. The video’s author approached two youngsters in a café, demanded that the guy take off his badge with the Ukrainian flag, and then tore it off. The young woman, Yershova, was wearing rainbow-colored earrings. The author promised to send the video to the counter-extremism center of the regional Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorate. On January 30, Yershova was summoned to the counter-extremism center, where she was detained pending trial. The court had a chance to examine the earrings that were decorated with a seven-color rainbow rather than six colors typical for LGBT symbols.

Countering “Insults against the Feelings of Believers”

On January 25, it was reported that law enforcement agencies in Yekaterinburg opened a criminal case under Article 148 Part 1 CC (public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed to insult the religious feelings of believers). As part of the case, searches were carried out in the home of Dmitry Fomintsev (the editor-in-chief of the Tochka News) as well as at the media outlet’s office. The case was based on posts about Metropolitan Yevgeny (Kulberg) of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye published in the spring-summer of 2023 on the “Irod Uralsky” Telegram channel. Fomintsev is the channel’s administrator and has the status of a witness in the case. The exact content of the posts is unknown.

Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers

Jehovah's Witnesses

In January, Jehovah's Witnesses continued to face sanctions on charges of involvement in the activities of local religious organizations that were recognized as extremist and banned.

On January 11, the court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra overturned the sentence of Andrei Sazonov under Article 282.2 Part 1 and Article 282.3 Part 1 CC and sent the case to the Uray City Court for a new, already third, trial. In December 2021, the same court found Sazonov guilty and fined him 500 thousand rubles. In May 2022, the court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra overturned the verdict and sent the case for a new trial in a different composition. On October 23, 2023, the Uray City Court sentenced Sazonov to a fine of 450 thousand rubles.

Muslims

On January 15, the Perevolotsky District Court of the Orenburg Region fined Akhmat Abuzyarov, imam-khatib of the mosque in the village of Zubochistka Vtoraya, two thousand rubles under Article 20.29 CAO (storage of extremist materials for the purpose of mass distribution) and confiscated the printed material seized from him. A book with the content that, “according to psycholinguistic expertise,” was identical to the text of “Mukhtasar Ilmi-hal. Introduction to Islam” (Item 1799 on the Federal List of Extremist Materials) was publicly available in the mosque’s classroom. We believe that this book, which does not contain any incendiary statements, was recognized as extremist inappropriately, and therefore the sanctions against Abuzyarov are also inappropriate.

Allya-Ayat

On January 18, it became known that searches were carried out at the homes of alleged followers of the Allya-Ayat in Altai Krai, as part of a criminal investigation under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC. According to law enforcement agencies, “extremist literature, means of communication, and computer equipment were confiscated… in the places where the sect’s adherents held meetings, as well as in the private residences of its spiritual leaders.” A case under the same article opened in Barnaul was previously reported in March 2022. The investigation presumed that from 2020 to October 2021, the “Ayat Center” operated in the city, and Allya-Ayat followers carried out their activities on its premises.