A bill including amendments to Article 20.3 of Russia’s Administrative Code, a section of the law On Countering Extremist Activity dealing with the display, manufacture, purchase and sale of Nazi attributes and symbols, was proposed in April and passed last week at a first reading in the State Duma. Sova opposes the initiative for reasons including the law’s vague wording, which provides for widespread abuse.

The amendments see the law expanded to cover symbols and propaganda beyond simply those of the Third Reich, and provide for stricter liability in general.

The law’s wording has often led to the wrongful prosecution of media and other organizations (see below), and the amendment only broadens its applicability.

Article 20.3 has two sections. The first covers the propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols, or paraphernalia or symbols that could be confused as such; this currently carries a relatively small fine and possible imprisonment. The second part covers the manufacture, sale or purchase of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols (or those confusingly similar), and if levied against an organization, can carry a fine as high as fifty thousand rubles.

Under the expanded law, individuals or organizations could now face sanction for the display (including in pictures) of the symbols or paraphernalia of any organization deemed extremist by a Russian court. We do not welcome the change to the law for another, even simpler reason: given its definition of the symbols of extremist organizations – "symbols of an organization officially registered … in connection with extremist activity" – it is unlikely to be effective, as organizations which have been banned, or expect they may be due to extremist activities, as a rule, are unlikely to register their symbols.

While Article 20.3 has been used legitimately on some occasions to prosecute neo-Nazi organizations, it has also been used against publishers and others who, while publicly displaying Nazi symbols, did not do so with the intent of promoting Nazi or fascist ideas.

The amendment increases penalties for offenses already covered under the law. It is Sova’s position that any move to toughen or expand the article should come only after public demonstrations not intended as propaganda are explicitly exempted from punishment.

In that connection, we note that a recent draft bill developed by the Ministry of Communications proposes amendments to Article 20.3 that would exempt from liability the use of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols (or, again, those confusingly similar) in "research and encyclopedic articles, as well as audio-visual and printed materials that are free from signs of promotion and (or) justification of Nazism and fascism." The introduction of such wording into the bill is currently under consideration in the Duma, and would be a logical addition to the law.

In light of the changes to Article 20.3, we offer the following brief review of a few recent instances of its misuse.

On June 13, 2012, a Kursk court fined local resident Sandra Kytina under Part 1 of Article 20.3. According to prosecutors, Kytina posted an image to her Vkontakte (Russia’s most popular social networking website) page depicting senior Russian government officials in Nazi uniform, with "the image of the Nazi swastika and the national emblem of Nazi Germany" in clear view. Again, Kytina’s objective was clearly not a promotion of Nazism, but a criticism of Russian politicians.

On May 21, 2012, the art director of a Kemerovo region nightclub was fined by a local court over promotional posters for a Victory Day-themed costume party that showed Hitler and swastikas. The party, which took place on May 9-10 (Victory Day and the following day), featured, among other things, club employees dressed like Red Army soldiers.

On May 11, 2012, a Gorno-Altaysk court fined blogger Sergei Reshetnev under Part 1 of Article 20.3 after he posted a series of pictures containing Nazi symbols and Hitler’s likeness to his Vkontakte page in February. However, the pictures were posted not to promote Nazism, but in a bid to conflate Gorno-Altaysk mayor Victor Oblogin with Hitler.

Given its use in frivolous cases against individuals with clear intentions other than the promotion of Nazism, it is Sova’s fear that the expanded Article 20.3 will only allow for expanded abuse. As such, we reiterate our position that no attempt to strengthen this particular law should be taken until its applicability is made more specific.