The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in May 2013.
Lawmaking
On May 21 the State Duma adopted in the second reading a bill to protect believers’ feelings, with an amendment being added in that reading. Instead of introducing a new criminal article, existing Criminal Code Article 148 will be expanded to include responsibility for public actions, expressing “obvious disrespect for society” and the “determination to insult” believers’ religious sensibilities. While voting on the bill deputies did not consider public demands, in particular those of the Presidential Human Rights Council, nor the recommendations of the State Duma Legal Department. Sova's take on the latest version of the bill is available here in Russian.
On May 24, the State Duma in second and third readings canceled the anti-extremist proposal “On Amendments to Article 4 and 24 of the Federal Law ‘On Freedom of Conscience and of Religious Association’ (in terms of granting religious organizations the right to set requirements for ministers, religious personnel and employees of religious organizations, as well as candidates for such positions).” According to the accepted version, “religious organizations have the right to establish, in accordance with their own internal regulations, conditions for the clergy and religious personnel, as well as requirements for them in terms of religious education.” As such, the state will not oversee requirements for the religious education of ministers, as had originally been intended. The Federation Council approved this version at the end of the month.
During the same week, the State Duma adopted in the first reading the draft law “On Amendments to Article 9 of the Federal Law ‘On Freedom of Conscience and of Religious Association.’” The bill proposes the addition of a third paragraph prohibiting foreigners or stateless people “in respect of whom the legislation of the Russian Federation has been decided about the undesirability of their stay (residence) in the Russian Federation,” as well as persons whose activities have been considered extremist by a Russian court, or are subject to the law on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, from becoming a founder, participant or member of a religious organization. But, as the editing of the bill will likely cause confusion in terms of ‘membership’ and ‘participation’ with respect to religious organizations, another revision is probable.
At the beginning of May it was made known that the Ministry of Justice was preparing amendments to the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activity,” suggesting the creation of a list of symbols similar to the existing federal lists of extremist materials and organizations. The Ministry claimed that such a list would help courts expedite their work while also limiting the possibility of arbitrary interpretations. The proposal operates on the assumption that the Ministry of Justice itself or its regional outposts would conduct the list. It is Sova’s position that the impracticality of the Federal List of Extremist Materials raises serious doubts about the feasibility of another similar document. Additionally, such a list of extremist symbols would by definition only include the official symbols of organizations banned as such – however, it is clear that organizations at risk of being banned would most likely not register their symbols officially.
At the end of the month we became aware that the Ministry of Communications was preparing a bill to amend the federal law on mass media. The bill provides for a ban on the establishment of media outlets by people subject to criminal prosecution for crimes against public security, the constitutional order and state security. The ban will affect, in particular, people convicted under anti-extremist articles and for disorderly conduct (hooliganism). According to the current law, only minors, prisoners and the mentally ill who have been recognized as such by a court are prohibited from establishing media. In Sova’s view, the adoption of the bill would represent an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom of expression for a large portion of convicts.
During the same period we also learned that the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft federal law "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” that would provide for increased penalties under the anti-extremist articles of the Criminal Code: 280, 282, 282.1 and 282.2. The bill was put together at the request of President Putin in order to “neutralize threats to national security stemming from the destructive activities of religious organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation.” According to the bill, fines and terms of imprisonment and corrective labor levied under the Criminal Code’s anti-extremist articles would increase. The bill was approved by the government Commission on Legislative Activities, and now faces review at a government meeting. It is Sova’s position that the harshening of sanctions on the already vague anti-extremist articles would be unjustified. Intimidation is hardly an effective method of dealing with radicalism, including in religious factions. Meanwhile the practical use of indictments under these criminal articles does not indicate that prosecutors are in need of tougher sanctions.
Criminal Prosecution
At the beginning of the month, the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Central District Court convicted and sentenced Other Russia activists Anton Lukin and Svetlana Kuznetsova under item “a” of Part 2 of Criminal Article 282 (actions aimed at inciting hatred and enmity committed with violence or the threat of violence), Part 1 of Criminal Article 280 (public calls to extremist activity) and Part 3 of Criminal Article 212 (calls to riots), and sentenced them to suspended terms of three years and six months in prison, respectively. The pair were charged in connection with the distribution of the leaflets Victory Will be Ours! and Gagarin: Results 50 Years On, and for the newspaper Capital Punishment during a June 2011 rally in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Their defense intends to appeal the decision. We do not have the entire case file, but it is Sova’s position that the fragments reviewed for expert reports on the basis of the charges contain neither calls to extremist activity nor hate speech.
In the second half of May the Arkhangelsk Regional Court dismissed an appeal of the sentence delivered against Arkhangelsk region Pomors’ association president Ivan Moseev under Criminal Code Article 282 Part 1, incitement to hatred or hostility, and the humiliation of human dignity. Readers will recall that Moseev’s sentence was finalized as a fine in the amount of 100,000 rubles ($3,100 USD, or about four times the average monthly salary in Russia). Moseev was accused of leaving a commentary on the website Echo of the North, under the pseudonym Pomors, that was insulting to ethnic Russians. While the comment, which we have reviewed, does exhibit hate speech, it contains no basis for criminal prosecution.
Towards the end of the month the presidium of the Moscow City Court dismissed a regular appeal by the lawyers of the convicted members of the punk protest group Pussy Riot. The court did not agree with the defense’s argument that the Pussy Riot ruling “was rendered with considerable violations of criminal law and criminal procedure that affected the outcome of the case” and was the result of a politicized case.
In late May, the Oktyabrsky district Magistrate’s Court of Novosibirsk sentenced two imams, Ilkhom Merazhov and Kamil Odilov, who are affiliated with the Spiritual Board of Muslims in the Asian Part of Russia, to a year each of probation under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code: the organization of an extremist organization. Merazhov has announced plans to appeal the verdict in all courts up to the European Court of Human Rights. Readers will recall that Merazhov and Odilov were accused of having organized a Novosibirsk chapter of the probably apocryphal religious organization Nurcular, knowing it was banned as an extremist group. The real reason the two were targeted was the fact that they were studying the books of Turkish theologian Said Nursi, many of whose works are banned in Russia. It is Sova’s position that the ban on Nursi’s works is unlawful, as is the prohibition of Nurcular – which does not exist in Russia. There are a few Muslims who study Nursi’s legacy, but none of them have demonstrated interest or participation in extremist activities.
Meanwhile, May saw an unprecedented increase in the prosecutorial targeting of Nursi’s works. A criminal case under Article 282.2 (the organization of and participation in the activities of an extremist organization) was opened against seven people, including a Turkish national and three citizens of Azerbaijan, in the Perm region. The quartet of foreigners, along with one Russian, was arrested while two other Russians were released on their own recognizance. From the detainees were seized about 5,000 books and pamphlets as well as computers and information media. There were other reports of raids on and detentions of several other Nursi followers in Anapa, Rostov-on-Don and St. Petersburg, though the exact number of people targeted is not known. During the raids more than 1,200 pieces of literature and information media were reportedly seized.
Later in May, the Taganrog City Court held a preliminary hearing in the case of sixteen Jehovah’s Witnesses who are accused of offenses under parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (the organization of an extremist organization and the participation in it) and under Part 4 of Article 150 of the Criminal Code (involving a minor in the commission of an offense). The crime, investigators claim, was that the defendants continued their work with the Jehovah’s Witnesses while “knowing” of the prohibition of the Taganrog chapter as an extremist group. The accused are charged with various acts, most of which cannot be described as extremist (for example refusing to take blood transfusions or to serve in the armed forces). The charge under Article 282.2 essentially comes down to the participation in religious meetings and the use of religious texts. ‘Experts’ who testified in the case carried out their testimony with several violations, giving legal opinions outside their purview instead of the religious evaluation purportedly necessary for the trial. Also, in a move rare in modern law enforcement, all sixteen charges have been filed with the aggravating circumstance of claims under Criminal Article 63 Part 1, Item “e:” that the offense was motivated by political, racial, ethnic or religious hatred, enmity, or hatred or animosity towards any social group. The indictment gives no proof of such religious hatred or enmity.
Administrative prosecution
In May we became aware of three cases of improperly-levied fines under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code: a Tyumen resident was fined for distributing banned Jehovah's Witnesses literature at a bus stop; a member of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of North Ossetia, the son of a regional mufti, was punished for trying sending a convict a DVD of the wrongfully banned film Miracles of the Koran as part of a support program for prisoners; an Ivanovo librarian was targeted due to the fact that her library made the banned pamphlet What is Scientology? available to the public (Russia's laws on library affairs dictate that all readers should have access to all books in a library's stock).
This month the Supreme Court of the Republic of Altai and the Oktyabrsky District Court of Penza delivered diametrically opposed decisions in cases under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code; both cases dealt with the display of Nazi symbols for purposes other than propaganda. The Altai court upheld the conviction of blogger Sergei Reshetnev, who posted a series of pictures of Adolf Hitler to VKontakte in a bid to conflate the local Gorno-Altai leadership with Nazis. Meanwhile the Penza court dismissed charges under Article 20.3 (propaganda and the public display of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols) in the case against Communist Party activist Pavel Barabanschik, who posted two meme images containing swastikas, but clearly condemning Nazism, to VKontakte. The court explained that, in its view, the public display of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols does not in and of itself constitute an offense under Article 20.3. Instead, the court said, it must be accompanied by propaganda, and this case, was not.
Other state activities
In mid-May Roskomnadzor, the federal media oversight agency, issued a second warning to the editors of Grani.ru over a purported violation of Article 4 of the Federal Law ‘On Mass Media.’ On the claims of incitement to religious hatred, the agency calls for the deletion of a photograph included in an April 23 article that had been the subject of an earlier warning. The picture shows a person wearing a shirt decorated by a picture of members of Pussy Riot stylized as Orthodox icons by artist Artem Loskutov. It is our position that both warnings were improper as the image on the T-shirts does not contain evidence of incitement to religious hatred, that being hatred of the Orthodox Church and its followers. Grani.ru’s editors refuse to remove the photo from the site, which could lead to the closure of their publication if Roskomnadzor chooses to take the matter to court.
The Zheleznodorozhny District Court in Rostov-on-Don issued a warning to two followers of the Chinese spiritual movement Falun Dafa over perceived violations of the laws on countering extremism. The basis for the warning was the believers’ use of the banned book Zhuan Falun in the group’s activities. Readers will recall that a few Falun Dafa materials were recognized as extremist in 2011, prompting a complaint to be filed with the European Court of Human Rights. Sova has repeatedly maintained that the persecution of Falun Dafa is unreasonable and unlawful.
