Rulemaking

On April 1, President Medvedev approved a draft of the federal law “On Amendments to Article 22.1 of the Federal Law ‘On State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs’ and articles 331 and 351.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.” The amendment introduces a ban on employment for minors who have been convicted under Section 29 of the Criminal Code (offenses against the constitutional order and security of the state, pp. 275-284). Though the measure is in line with current practices of investigating criminal liability, due to other articles in the Criminal Code, unjust verdicts are easy to envision within the scope of future applications of this law. We fear that the amendment could put victims of improperly used anti-extremism articles in greater danger than they already are.

In mid-April, Communist Party Duma deputy Andrey Tychinin submitted a bill proposing amendments to Federal Law No. 126-FZ, “On Connections” (that being Internet, cellular telephones, etc.). Tychinin pointed out the fact that in its present form, the law contains language allowing the restriction of access to websites without a court decision, which contradicts the constitutional principle of presumed innocence; we support the proposal. Tychinin suggested bringing the wording of the law into accordance with the Constitution and the articles of the Code of Civil Procedure that govern how prosecutors and other government agencies bring lawsuits pertaining to citizens’ rights, freedoms, and lawful interests; unspecified groups of individuals; or the interests of the Russian Federation, its subjects, and its municipal entities. According to the text of the bill, Section 1, Part 3, p. 64 of 126-FZ should specify that “restricted access or suspension of the provision of communications services to businesses and individuals by carriers is done on the basis of a court decision which came into force in cases stipulated by federal law.” The bill was sent on April 12 for review at the State Duma Committee for Culture. Sova Center has repeatedly pointed out that the restriction of access to websites without a court order, and instead on the basis of a prosecutor’s order, is improper and leads to countless abuses. 

The second half of April saw the Interior Ministry introduce a bill to amend Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code: propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols. The amendment would impose fines for the public display of symbols or paraphernalia of extremist organizations, and increase the penalty for offenses already covered under the law. Sova does not support the initiative. We take issue with the existing wording of Article 20.3, as the public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols is often not meant as propaganda (a banal example being WWII movies), but is treated as such. The ambiguity of such wording has led to numerous wrongful prosecutions against individuals and organizations alike, especially media outlets (see below in the case of Strygin). In the event that the bill is adopted, people who for whatever reason publish elements of symbols and attributes of banned organizations would also become subject to prosecution. Besides, such organizations could use symbols in an entirely different context. It is Sova’s position that any move to toughen or expand the article should come only after its wording is changed, so that public demonstrations without the intent of propaganda are not subject to punishment.

Prosecution

This month a Petrozavodsk court convicted Maxim Efimov, the chairman of the Youth Human Rights Group of Karelia, under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code: inciting hatred or enmity, as well as the humiliation of human dignity on the basis of religion. Efimov had published an article entitled Karelia is tired of priests on his organization’s website. The article contains aggressive criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church, but no incitement to violence against its adherents, leaders or others. We remind readers that the Supreme Court has verified that criticism alone of religious groups does not in itself constitute a violation of Article 282.

In mid-April Moscow and St. Petersburg began hearings on a case brought under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code: participation in the activities of a banned organization. The defendants are Other Russia Party activists who are alleged to have organized activities for the banned National Bolshevik Party. The Moscow court is investigating the сase of two Other Russia activists who took part in the attack on a Foreign Ministry reception room in 2008. In Petersburg, 12 Other Russia activists appeared in court, nine of whom are accused under Part 2 of Article 282.2, while the other three are charged under Part 1: the organization of an extremist organization. We consider it unreasonable to prosecute for participating in the activities of the National Bolsheviks, since the ban on the party itself was improper.

In the second half of the month, Moscow’s Tagansky District Court extended the detention of members of punk-protest group Pussy Riot as part of the high-profile case following their “punk prayer” in the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Central Moscow. We do not consider the alleged participants’ prosecution legitimate, as they are charged under Part 2 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code: hooliganism committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, motivated by religious hatred. Pussy Riot did not display this motive in the protest, or any hostility towards Orthodox Christians in general. In April it became known that the authors of the expert opinion commissioned by the investigation did not find signs of a criminal offense in the protest. The opinion did, however, find that the protest offended religious sensibilities and personally insulted Patriarch Kirill – both of which are administrative offenses. The investigation hid the results of the expert examination, and the decision was made to extend the detention anyway. Meanwhile, Amnesty International has issued an appeal to the Russian authorities to release the members of Pussy Riot, who it considers to be prisoners of conscience.

Administrative proceedings

Saratov blogger Alexander Strygin was fined in late April under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code: propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols. Strygin’s LiveJournal page featured re-posted collages and “demotivators” (a meme style common on the RuNet), one of which was a photo guide of the Third Reich showing Nazi symbols, labeled “The Ministry of the Interior of Russian Federation.” The sentence was imposed based on the understanding that Strygin had promoted Nazism, though the implication of the post was clearly a disparaging association between the sitting The Interior Ministry and the National Socialist regime. As such we consider the sentence improper.

Materials banned for extremism

At the beginning of the month, the Kostroma Regional Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit to categorize anti-police leaflets distributed in that region as extremist. Once again, a prosecutor is misusing anti-extremist legislation in an attempt to protect the police. As usual, this involves classifying the police as a social group – which they are not – despite the presence of other articles in Russian law that provide ample protection for law enforcement officers and officials.

Later in the month, the Kursk Region’s Pristensky District Court canceled extremist status for the Jehovah’s Witnesses pamphlet What Happens at Death. The court dismissed the case to ban the brochure on the grounds that the Rostov Regional Court found in 2009 that the brochure contains no signs of extremism. However, we remind readers that the same Kursk court is currently seeking the ban of four other Jehovah’s Witnesses texts.

Still later in April, the Amur Oblast Court overturned a ban on former Legislative Assembly deputy Nikolai Degtyarev’s poem Anti-national Front. The poem had been banned as extremist in January based on a Blagoveshchensk City Court’s expert opinion, whose authors argued that the poem incites hatred towards the social group “the political party United Russia.” It is Sova’s position that any categorization of a political party as a social group is an improper use of the law. In any case, the same follows from a Supreme Court plenum’s decision on cases involving extremist crimes: the Court stated that criticism of political figures in and of itself cannot be considered hate speech. The Court also forbids experts from asking questions that simply restate the wording of the law.

Law enforcement activity

At the beginning of the month, two Vladivostok residents – left opposition activists Nikolai Sosnov and Viktor Potapeyko – were detained in Ussuriysk. Police detained them to check out a run of “extremist” leaflets (200 copies) containing criticism of an education bill proposed by the State Duma and an alternative proposal by State Duma deputy Oleg Smolin. It is a regular practice for police to confiscate an entire print run to “check” for extremist content, a practice we consider illegitimate (only a few copies would be required for such a check). In addition, we note that police reported the confiscation of banned materials, though the leaflet is not recognized as such by Russian courts. Smolin has demanded an explanation from the Interior Ministry.