Lawmaking

On April 29, the Federation Council approved several bills which, from our point of view, will lead to a restriction of rights and freedoms, as well as increased pressure on society and a greater number of unjustifiable prosecutions of citizens related, in one way or another, to anti-extremist legislation.

The so-called “anti-terrorist bill” once again toughens the punishment for terrorist activities, but also for other crimes. In particular, the punishment under Article 212 of the Criminal Code (mass riots) must increase from 4-10 years of imprisonment to 8-15 years. The content of the article also changes: not merely the organization of riots are punishable, but their preparation as well. The list of means whose use in riots is punishable under the law (firearms, explosives and explosive devices) also grows longer, and now includes “substances and objects dangerous to others”. The “acquisition of knowledge and practical skills in the course of physical and psychological training” for the purpose of organizing mass riots is also subject to punishment. Additions were made to Article 282.1 (organization of an extremist association) and 282.2 (organization of the activities of an extremist organization) as well. These articles provide for the penal responsibility of acts of “incitement, recruitment or other involvement of a person” into the work of an extremist organization (punishable by one to six years of imprisonment). However, FSB workers gain the right to carry out personal examination and to verify the documents not of all suspects, as was initially envisaged, but only of citizens suspected of having committed crimes and offenses subject to FSB investigation.

The Federation Council also approved the “law on bloggers”, which brings amendments to the laws on information and communication. Those amendments are clearly aimed at strengthening state control over the Internet. Indeed, according to the bill, server owners are obliged to notify Roskomnadzor (the Federal service for the supervision of communications, information technology and the mass media) about the beginning of their activities, to keep the data about all user activity up to six months after the end of their activities, and to provide these data to law enforcement authorities in cases stipulated by law – as well as to fulfill the requirements concerning hardware and software equipment in order to facilitate search activities. The bill defines the term “blogger”  as referring to “the owner of a site or a page on the Internet, accessed by more than three thousand users a day, and which is not registered as a mass media”. All parts of this definition are unclear, and its clarification is assigned to Roskomnadzor. A “blogger” is obliged to reveal his/her real name, assume the responsibility similar to that determined by the law “On the mass media”, and is to be registered in a special list. Mikhail Fedotov, chairman of the Human Rights Council to the President of the Russian Federation (HRC), asked the head of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko to reject this bill. The HRC presented a detailed negative opinion on this bill.

Senators approved the “law on the rehabilitation of Nazism” in the version proposed by a group of deputies headed by Irina Yarovaya (“United Russia”). Yarovaya suggested to introduce a new article into the Criminal Code in order to punish with a heavy fine or imprisonment for up to five years the following acts: “denial of the facts established by the decision of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, the approval of the crimes established by the aforementioned decision, as well as the dissemination of false information on the activities of the Soviet Union during World War Two in relation to the prosecution of the crimes established by the aforementioned decision, committed in public.” From our perspective, this bill will not contribute to the fight against neo-Nazi propaganda, since all possibilities for this fight are already provided for by Article 282 of the Criminal Code. Because of its unclear wording, however, it can lead to a restriction of freedom of speech, particularly in history discussions. The legal inaccuracy of the bill in general is also noteworthy. Senator Konstantin Dobrynin's attempt to oppose this initiative by proposing his own softer version of the bill did not find support in the Federation Council.

In mid-April, the case of Timur Malsagov, a follower of “Hizb ut-Tahrir”, was transferred to the Moscow City Court. Malsagov is being charged under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of the activities of an extremist organization) and under Part 1 of Article 30 and Article 278 (attempt at seizing power with violence). From our point of view, the prosecution of “Hizb ut-Tahrir” supporters for preparing to seize power on the grounds of their party activities (holding meetings, literature distribution, etc) is unjustified.

Another case was transferred to a court in Murmansk in late April, this time concerning Alexander Serebryanikov, owner and one of the authors of the site “Bloger51”. He is prosecuted under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred or hostility, and attack on human dignity). According to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the case was initiated due to the publication of materials containing “statements inciting hostile behavior against a group of people, on a religious basis.” The defense claims that Serebryanikov is charged of writing a paragraph with nationalist content published in a post about the murder of the previous head of the Murmansk region representative office in Moscow, Adil Nazim-ogly Makhmudov.. Serebryanikov argues that the paragraph appeared in the text after a break-in; when finding out the intrusion, the editor promptly deleted the wrong text and moved the post to the archives. In this case, from our perspective, criminal prosecution is not necessary. It is apparent that the true reason for pressure is the authors' criticism of local authorities.

At the beginning of the month, the presidium of the Moscow City Court partially satisfied the “Pussy Riot” group members' revision complaint concerning their conviction by the Khamovniki Court. The City Court changed the legal basis of the sentence, removing the conviction on the grounds of hatred against a particular social group. Thus, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Ekaterina Samutsevich are sentenced for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, of premeditated hooliganism committed by a group of persons motivated by religious hatred. Each of them got their terms reduced by a month. Remember we consider the sentence to be completely wrong.

In Oryol, the case on the ban on several articles from the popular local website Orlec.ru as extremist was ended in late April. The case had been initiated after the “Orthodox community” required the FSB office in the Oryol region to check several materials published on the site “for offenses committed under Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code” . The FSB commissioned specialists from Oryol State University for linguistic examination of the texts. They found “hostile and/or derogatory statements towards individuals of certain religious groups, namely the Orthodox”. Such an opinion was based, among other things, their opinion on quotes from the “Tales of Bygone Years” and a text by Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev cited on the site. But the examination initiated by the court did not find any sign of extremism in the materials from Orlec.ru.

In mid-April, the criminal proceedings against the artist Pyotr Pavlensky under Paragraph “b” of Part 1, Article 213 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism motivated by hatred) was also put to an end. It had been started following the action “Fixation”, held on Red Square on November 10, 2013. The investigators said the decision to end the case was taken because Pavlensky had no hate motives, so there was no guilty act. They acknowledged that the artist had been guided by the desire “to show the socio-political situation in Russia in a metaphorical way.” Pavlensky now has a right to rehabilitation and compensation for the moral damage caused by unlawful criminal prosecution.

In April, the organization “Rahmat” from Yekaterinburg was wrongfully sentenced to a fine of 50 thousand rubles under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, for the dissemination of extremist materials on the grounds that the – unjustifiably – banned book “The life of the Prophet” was discovered in its premises in Orenburg.

Early in April, the prosecutor's office of the Chuvash Republic said that following a request of the Novocheboksarsk's prosecutor's office, the Moscow District Court in Novocheboksarsk convicted the provider of the company “Internet Center” (CHEBNET) to a fine of 50 thousand rubles under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code. The Leninsky District Court in Cheboksary sentenced, under the same article, the director of the city branch of “Rostelecom” to a fine of two thousand rubles for not having blocked materials banned as extremist by the Kirovsky District Court in Novosibirsk on June 21, 2013. Among these materials there was a video shot by Navalny's supporters taken before the elections to the State Duma in 2011, entitled “Let’s Remind Crooks and Thieves their 2002 Manifesto”, not displaying any signs of extremism. We should also note that prosecuting providers under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code does not make sense, since they do not deliberately spread prohibited materials.

In Maykop, District Council deputy Alexander Petin was charged with a fine of two thousand rubles under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (propaganda and public display of Nazi attributes or symbols, or public display of attributes or symbols of extremist organizations). A solar symbol resembling the swastika, but which is not prohibited in Russia, was discovered on his house.

Ban of materials for extremism and other state action

Early in April, the Magassky District Court in Ingushetia banned as extremist the Ingush opposition website habar.org. According to the prosecutors, materials deemed extremist as “containing public and deliberately false accusations against persons holding a public or state office in the Russian Federation” were published on the site, and its editor did not take any steps to remove them. Two articles prohibited in 2012 are mentioned. Their authors accused Yevkurov, Ingushetia's president, of electoral frauds during the December 4, 2011 elections. This should not be considered as “deliberately false accusations” but rather as a reason for the holding of a public court hearing in order to establish the truth. As these articles have been deemed extremist wrongfully, we believe the website's ban to be likewise unjustifiable.

In mid-April, the Lyublinsky District Court in Moscow after considering Alexei Navalny's complaint found the blocking of his blog on Live Journal (navalny.livejournal.com) justified. The blog was blocked because of calls to participate in public actions unauthorized by the authorities, which implied the following statement posted on the blog on March 14, 2014: “It is not just a 'rally against war' anymore. It is a march and a rally against the lawlessness created by the crooks and thieves in power.” Though supported the blocking the court acknowledged that Roskomnadzor had illegally and improperly formulated its notification to block the site blaming it for calls to mass riots and extremist activity. After announcing the operative part of its decision, the court pointed out that Navalny's blog contained neither signs of extremism, nor calls for mass riots. It should be noted that in this blog post, Navalny invited his readers to participate in the authorized march on the situation in Ukraine, held in Moscow on March 15.

We learned late in April that the Petrozavodsk City Court repealed the warning against violations of the law on countering extremism. This warning was issued in March 2014 by the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Karelia against the chief editor of the Karelian newspaper “TVR-Panorama”, Evgeny Belyanchikov, following the publication of a family private correspondence about the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. In our opinion, there wasn't any sign of extremism in this publication. The family members living in Ukraine and Crimea try to convince their relatives, who are worrying for their well-being, that the situation in their regions is different from what is depicted by the Russian media. In court, the prosecutors asserted that even if the article was not extremist in itself, it could trigger the writing of extremist comments. They added that Belyanchikov was actually spreading rumors and unverified facts under the guise of reliable information. Nevertheless, the court decided to side with the editorial board.

The first case of misuse of Russian anti-extremism legislation in Crimea also occurred this month. At the end of the month, Riza Shevkiev, a member of the Crimean Tatar People's Majlis and head of the charitable foundation “Krym”, received a written warning against violation of the law on countering extremism from the acting prosecutor of Crimea. According to the prosecutor’s office, the reason was that a Ukrainian flag was hanged up on the Majlis building “for propaganda and public display, which contributed to provoking social and ethnic discord and became a tool of propaganda for exceptionalism (…). These actions provoked the conflict between the Republic's inhabitants, resulting, on April 21, 2014, in unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms removing the Ukrainian flag” and “could have caused harm to the health of Majlis staff.” Prosecutors stated that “Article 280.1 of the Russian Criminal Code establishes responsibility for public calls to actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.” From our perspective, the hanging of this flag definitely reflects Majlis members' attitude towards the annexation of Crimea by Russia, but interpreting these actions as propaganda for exceptionalism or hatred does not make sense. Nor can the hanging of a flag be considered as a call to violent separatism. It is indeed very strange to charge someone on the grounds that a third party could cause him or her bodily harm. ​