Lawmaking

On July 1 the Russian government introduced to the State Duma the draft law On Amendments to Article 15 of the Federal Law ‘On Countering Extremist Activities,’ under which “an individual who has previously been a director or member of the governing body of a public or religious organization which … has been subjected to a legal decision on the liquidation or ban of its activity, cannot create a public or religious association.” We note that the law does not specify how an individual’s status as a leader or member of the leadership of a banned organization would be established. Additionally, the person in question could theoretically not have been involved in any wrongdoing. As such the vague wording of the amendment proposal creates the possibility of serious arbitrariness in rulings.

Similar circumstances brought about President Putin’s signature, on July 3, of the law On Amendments to Article 9 of the Federal Law ‘On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.’ The document complements Chapter 9, paragraph 3 of the current law The Creation of Religious Organizations, which addresses the prohibition of 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 subject to the law on combating money laundering and the finance of terrorism, from becoming a founder, participant or member of a religious organization. We remind readers that Russian law does now define participation in a religious organization, and many such organizations have fluid memberships anyway.

On July 1, the People’s Assembly of the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia submitted to the State Duma a draft law On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, proposing the criminalization of the acceptance and/or denial of persecution on ethnic grounds. The project would involve the introduction of the new Article 357.1 of the Criminal Code, which would be designed to levy harsh fines, forced labor, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years for “the public denial, justification, approval or understatement of the scale of acts of genocide (political repression) including forced relocation (deportation) along ethnic lines, expressed at a meeting or other public event in order to protect those who committed such crimes, or in order to express solidarity with them.” We doubt that criminal liability can be an effective method of combating historical revisionism. One positive aspect of the bill is that it proposes the criminalization of not simply any given denial, but denial with an objectionable purpose; this is possible in principle. However, the absence of criteria to determine what constitutes political repression on ethnic grounds or genocide leaves it inadequate.

Оn July 3 the State Duma adopted in the first reading a draft law on combating extremism online and in the field of finance. Readers will recall that the bill was introduced to the Duma in August 2011, but parliamentary consideration was postponed. The bill proposed criminal penalties and the confiscation of property as punishment for the funding of extremist activity, and introduced to the Criminal Code the new Article 282.3, in addition to tougher measures against online information (referred to as propaganda). It is Sova’s position that the introduction of a new article to the Criminal Code was unjustified, as now the funding of extremist activities may be legally regarded as a form of complicity in crimes punishable under Russia’s anti-extremist articles. We are categorically opposed to the inclusion in the bill of language that equates the Internet to mass media in articles 280 and 282 of the Criminal Code, as information posted online has a different degree of availability and can be designed for a narrow range of readers or users. As such, there is a great possibility of serious persecution (especially under Article 280) of online statements, which cause absolutely negligible public danger because of their small reach. It should be noted that current legislation already provides for the extensive prosecution of unlawful online statements.

Criminal prosecution

At the end of June it was reported that the prosecutor of the Promyshlenny District Court of Stavropol approved an indictment against Anastasia Polnikova, Nikita Fil and Mikhail Pronin under items ‘a’ and ‘b’ of Part 2 of Article 244 of the Criminal Code, the desecration of gravestones intended for ceremonies in connection with the burial of the deceased or their commemoration in terms of sculptural, architectural structures dedicated to the fight against fascism or to the victims of fascism, by a group of persons by prior agreement. Fil and Pronin also face charges under Part 2 of Article 213 (hooliganism), while Polnikova is charged under item ‘b’ of Part 3 of Article 242 (the illegal distribution or public display of pornographic materials). Readers will recall that on May 9, 2013 (Victory Day, one of Russia’s most important national holidays) the defendants took a series of pictures on their mobile phones at a memorial to Soviet World War II heroes of the T-34 tank battalion. The participants posed with a blow-up doll, a red flag with the hammer and sickle and a Russian flag. In some of the pictures budennovkas (an old-fashioned cap worn by the Red Army), and in others a tankist’s helmet, are visible. Polnikova posted the pictures on social networks. It is Sova’s position that in this case, the application of Article 244 is improper. As far as we can understand there was no damage to the memorial, and in this connection it is unclear how the law against desecration applies. It is highly doubtful that this group of young people wanted deliberately to defile the “honor and memory of those killed” or the “feelings of veterans.” Most likely this was a case of hooliganism, and for that reason our position is that it should be prosecuted as such, for example under Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code (petty hooliganism).

On July 2 Moscow’s Ostankino Court found Aleksandr Lebedev, a deputy of the Slobodskaya regional Duma of the Kirov region and owner of the National Reserve Corporation, guilty under items ‘a’ and ‘b’ of Part 2 of Article 116 of the Criminal Code: assault out of hooligan intentions and motivated by political hatred. Lebedev, who had punched businessman Sergei Polonsky on national television, was sentenced to 150 hours of compulsory labor. Lebedev was also charged under item ‘b’ of Article 213 of the Criminal Code, hooliganism motivated by political hatred, but the charge was withdrawn during the course of the trial. We welcome the removal of this article from the sentencing, as the characterization of the incident as extremist was a clear mistake.

Materials banned for extremism and other government actions

On July 2, Dzerzhinsky District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod region refused a prosecutor’s request to recognize as extremist a monograph by S. Dmitrievsky, B. Gvareli and O. Chelyshevaya entitled The International Tribunal for Chechnya. The court considered the results of a psycho-linguistic study conducted at Moscow’s Center for Applied Linguistics. Experts in the study concluded that the book contains no statements indicating hostility, violence or ill will against any national, racial or social group, or of the superiority of one over the other. Quotes and illustrations featuring public calls to violence and harsh assessments of certain national groups were noted as negative examples. Additionally, unfair citations were not found. “According to the content and style of presentation,” one expert said, “the book refers to legal literature, and even anti-extremist, more than extremist in nature.”

On July 30, the judicial board for civil cases at the Primorsky Krai Court reversed a decision by the Leninsky District Court of Vladivostok obliging the Primorsky Puppet Theatre to dismiss sound engineer Igor Popov, an Other Russia activist. Readers will recall that the prosecution had demanded Popov’s dismissal because, in its reading, he was involved in a crime against the constitutional order, and such persons are prohibited from working in childcare centers. Despite the defense’s arguments that as a sound engineer Popov was not involved in teaching, and cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution because he was not convicted, the court upheld the prosecution’s claims. However, the regional court rejected the decision.

On July 12 Saratov region police shut down the festival ‘Neformat Saratov: No one left out!’ in a village in the General Engels district. Prior to the event, district police officers arrived at the event site, and the festival’s organizer was brought to the police station, fingerprinted and given a warning against extremist activity. Police believed that the organizers’ real intent was to rally support for unrest in Pugachev, as evidenced by an invitation to ‘anarchist’ group Mongol Shuudan to the festival. Later, security agents detained an entire bus of festival participants and in Engels searched them, forcing passengers to give up personal information while being filmed before ultimately being sent back to Saratov. Needless to say, the festival did not go through. It is Sova’s position that police not only committed a litany of violations in detaining citizens, but actually acted unlawfully. Even reasonable concerns about the possibility of extremist manifestations are not grounds for the cancelation of an event. According to the law on countering extremist activity, police would have had the right to detain offenders only during the festival, but not by prior restraint.