Throughout 2024, freedom of expression in Russia has remained under severe pressure, continuing a trend observed over the past two years.
Internet control has intensified, with platforms facing increased blocking and significant slowdowns. Nearly all independent media websites are now blocked, and most social networks are inaccessible without VPNs. As of August, the dissemination of certain information can be banned by presidential decree, bypassing the need for legislation.
Restrictions on information dissemination now extend to new groups. For instance, the designation of the 'international LGBT movement' as an extremist organization has made public statements defending LGBT rights extremely risky. Such statements now potentially fall under the Criminal Code article regarding the continuation of banned organization activities.
Migrants face increasingly strict limitations on critical speech. Individuals who have been granted citizenship risk losing it if their statements are deemed extremist. A proposed bill under consideration would allow for the deportation of foreigners for any so-called 'political' administrative offenses.
The interpretation of participation in an 'extremist community' continues to broaden. This charge is now being leveled against the lawyers of Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader who died in custody, as well as journalists who covered Navalny-related events.
Criminal prosecution persists for pro-Ukrainian, anti-war, and oppositional statements, even the ones containing no calls for or justification of violence.
The article on propaganda and justification of terrorism is the one most frequently invoked. While some incriminating statements indeed called for or justified violent actions, the real public danger of these statements is often not assessed and is frequently very low. Charges of justifying terrorism can also be brought for statements that in no way endorsed violence, as demonstrated by the infamous cases of theater director Evgenia Berkovich and playwright Svetlana Petriychuk.
Courts are increasingly imposing actual prison sentences for criminal offenses related to public statements. The average length of these prison terms is also rising. A single disloyal statement about military actions can now result in imprisonment for five years or more.
This year, courts have imposed sanctions under administrative offense articles related to public statements more than four and a half thousand times. Many of these sanctions were clearly inappropriate. They targeted actions such as discrediting or insulting officials or military personnel, making hostile remarks against them, displaying Ukrainian symbols, and similar offenses.
We reiterate our call for Russia to lift the numerous restrictions on freedom of expression imposed in recent years and to release hundreds of individuals imprisoned for speech that poses no significant threat. Our detailed recommendations to ODIHR and participating States have been submitted in writing.
Recommendations
To the participating states:
1. Bring national legislations and practices related to countering terrorism and extremism in line with the international human rights standards.
2. Ensure that the definitions of terrorist and extremist activity in relevant laws are as clear as possible to eliminate the chance for an expansive interpretation.
3. Revise the legal definition of extremism in national legislations, if present so that this concept refers only to actions connected in one way or another with the use of violence.
4. Ensure that freedom of conscience and belief as such is not subject to additional restrictions within the framework of anti-terrorism or anti-extremist legislation.
5. Ensure that criminal law articles relating to public statements criminalize only statements that call for discrimination and violence. Incitement to hatred based on group characteristics – such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc – may be an exception. The list of protected characteristics should not include any vague criteria, as the lack of clarity leads to abuse.
6. Ensure that the expression of various political or especially religious viewpoints regarding the desirable societal structure is not restricted merely because these perspectives are politically and ethically unacceptable to the majority of society. This includes opinions about the structure and policies of the state, its borders, approaches to managing cultural diversity, family matters, and more. Punishment should only be applied when unlawful methods, especially violent means, are used to achieve these ideals or when there are public calls to employ such methods, including incitement to hatred based on ethnic, religious, or similar criteria.
7. Ensure that public associations and media outlets are only prohibited by a court for extremist activities based on legally effective judgments against their participants, provided that this activity has not been an isolated incident. Criminal prosecution for the continued activities of such associations should only be considered if the actions in question were connected to or aimed at committing crimes of extremist or terrorist nature.
8. Ensure that the prohibition of a public association – as a measure affecting a wide range of individuals, aside from those proven to have committed crimes is only enforced based on genuinely serious claims against the association.
9. Ensure that the wording and application of the relevant criminal code articles meet the threshold of public danger of the statements in question. The criteria presented in the six-part test in the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of hatred can be used as guidelines.
10. Ensure that prohibitions on the public display of specific symbols and the imposition of penalties for such actions are imposed solely in instances where these actions have been intended to incite hatred or other forms of socially dangerous provocations, or to promote organizations that have been banned for engaging in terrorist or extremist activities.
11. Repeal the restrictions of historical debates if present in national legislations.
12. Repeal the mechanism of prohibiting “information materials” along with subsequent penalties for their dissemination per se, if present. With widespread internet availability, such prohibitions fail to effectively curtail socially harmful propaganda and often lack clear definitions, thereby significantly increasing the risk of excessive or arbitrary penalties. A first step should involve repealing any legal consequences for possessing such materials in countries where such regulations exist.
13. Ensure that blocking access to materials on the internet is exclusively applied to content that violates the law (as brought into compliance with the recommendations outlined above). The illegality of materials should either be determined by a separate court decision or declared by an executive authority based on the material being deemed illegal in the context of a previously reviewed criminal case.
14. Elaborate balanced and accurate approaches to cooperation with media platforms concerning the online content regulation.
15. Ensure that investigations and trials related to cases classified as terrorist or extremist are conducted while preserving the procedural rights of the accused, including trial transparency (with generally accepted exceptions). Imposing additional restrictions on the rights of the accused, including the use of torture, is unacceptable in such cases.
16. Review previously issued court decisions in order to secure the release of citizens who have already been convicted from unlawful or excessive penalties, primarily those who are deprived of their liberty.
To ODIHR:
17. Update the OSCE recommendations related to countering terrorism and extremism in view of the latest developments of national legislations and the human rights obligations of the OSCE member states.
18. Mediate a constructive dialogue between the participating states in all diversity of their anticipations and the global online platforms to elaborate more balanced and effective policies of online content regulation.