Misuse of Anti-Extremism in July 2015

Настоящий материал (информация) произведен и (или) распространен иностранным агентом Исследовательский Центр «Сова» либо касается деятельности иностранного агента Исследовательский Центр «Сова».
The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in July 2015.

Criminal Prosecution

In mid-July, the Leninsky district court of Barnaul recognized Anton Podchasov, an activist of the Republican Party of Russia - People's Freedom Party (RPR-Parnas) guilty under the Criminal Code Article 280 Part 1 (public incitement to extremist activity) and also under Article 282 Part 1 (incitement to hatred, hostility or humiliation on the basis of nationality); he received a suspended sentence of one and a half years with ban on activities related to telecommunication networks, including the Internet, for the entire duration of punishment, with additional one and a half years of probation. Podchasov was sentenced for sharing the text Russophobia Post, previously published by Andrey Teslenko, an opposition activist from Barnaul. A criminal case had been opened against Teslenko as well, prompting his departure from Russia for Ukraine, where he received political asylum. We would like to remind that this text, written in a very abrasive manner, contained insults against ethnic Russians, and appeals to the Ukrainian authorities not to grant citizenship to them. Its fragment, shared online, has been recognized as extremist in the Stavropol Region. However, in our opinion, criminal prosecution for sharing this text is problematic. In particular, the question remains unclear whether incitement to ethnic discrimination, made on Russian territory but addressed to the authorities of another country in relation to people without Russian citizenship, should be subject to prosecution. In late July, Podchasov filed an appeal against the sentence, which was simultaneously challenged by the Regional Prosecutor's Office; the latter intends to request that the court ban Podchasov, a member of a Polling Station Commission, from working on the electoral commissions for three years.

The investigation connects Podchasov and Teslenko to Vladislav Konopikhin, a Communist from Barnaul and an assistant to Nikolay Nozdrachyov, a deputy of the Altai Regional Legislative Assembly from the Communist Party, against whom a criminal case was opened in July under Article 282 Part 1. Konopikhin has been included on the Rosfinmonitoring List; all his accounts are frozen. Konopikhin is accused of posting extremist articles, photos and videos online; his residence was searched, and, reportedly, the materials were sent for an examination. It was reported that the case was based on the banned video Let’s Remind Crooks and Thieves about Their 2002 Manifesto, produced by Alexey Navalny’s supporters, images with swastikas, and Konopikhin’s publications, critical of the Antimaydan movement, in the Russian Right Sector online group. Due to lack of accurate information about the content of the charges, we are unable to give them our assessment, but preliminary information makes us doubt that Konopikhin’s actions are liable under Article 282.

In mid-July, the Kromskoy district court of the Oryol Region delivered its verdict in the case of a teacher and poet from Kromy Alexander Byvshev. He was sentenced under Article 282 Part 1 to 300 hours of mandatory labor with the two-year ban on the profession (teaching secondary school) and confiscation of his laptop, for publishing his poem To Ukrainian Patriots. Byvshev was also included on the Rosfinmonitoring List, and the account, used by him to receive benefits as a former resident of the area contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster, has been blocked. The poem, for which Byvshev was convicted and which was found extremist in court, calls on Ukrainians to meet with armed resistance the “Moskal gang,” which had descended upon their land. As we see it, the author’s hostile position is based not on ethnic origin of a group, but on the character of its activities. Thus, the incriminating actions could not be categorized under Article 282. Byvshev intends to appeal the verdict.

In mid-July, Bakhchisaray district court of the Republic of Crimea found a local resident Mustafa Yagyaev guilty as charged under the Criminal Code Article 282 Part 2 (incitement to hatred with violence or threat of violence). Yagyaev was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with “loss of the right to engage in activities related to transfer and dissemination of any information”. The pretext for prosecuting Yagyaev was a de-facto interpersonal conflict. Yagyaev, a technician with Housing Maintenance and Utilities Board in the village of Zheleznodorozhnoe, had a disagreement with accounting department employees about the consequences of Crimea joining the Russian Federation. Yagyaev began to scream at his colleagues and use derogatory epithets against them; according to the investigation, he also said: “we will return Crimea to Ukraine, there will be a war, we will have to cut and burn, and the Russians will drown in blood in this war, but it is a pity that my Muslim brothers will perish.” (The defendant denies that he made such a statement.) The Center for Combating Extremism was promptly informed about the conflict and opened a criminal case. The real reason for the prosecution is likely Yagyaev’s activities as the imam of the Turgenevka village mosque, an activist, and a member of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis during the 1990s. In our opinion, the verdict under Article 282 against Yagyaev was inappropriate. Yagyaev was addressing three women, who were in the same room. Even assuming that his statements were extreme, they do not meet the criteria of Article 282, since they were not made in public.

In late July, criminal cases were opened in Moscow under Article 282.2 Part 1 (organization of an extremist organization) against Alexander Sokolov and Valery Parfyonov, activists of a banned organization Army of the Will of the People (AVN), as well as the writer Yury Mukhin, the ideologist of the movement for the referendum “For a responsible power”. All three of them were placed under arrest for two months. It was reported that three criminal cases under Article 282 Part 1 (inciting hatred against the “government representatives” social group) were initiated in March against Kirill Barabash, a prominent activist of the movement. We would like to remind, that, after the ban on the AVN, a new movement with a similar ideology, IGPR “ZOV”, has been founded. Law enforcement agencies have concluded that the new group continued the activities of the AVN, and began to prosecute its active participants. In our opinion, the ban against the AVN – the Stalinist nationalist organization, which had repeatedly engaged in xenophobic propaganda – was inappropriate, because the decision to recognize the movement as extremist was based solely on the ban against the leaflet You have chosen – you’ll be the judge!, which called for amending the Constitution in a way to outlaw unpopular officials. The ban is unfounded, since calling for a referendum on amending the Constitution is not an illegal act, even if the proposed amendment runs contrary to the present Constitution.

In late July, it became known that a criminal case under Article 280.1 Part 1 (public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation) was opened against Vladimir Zavarkin, a deputy of the Suoyarvi Urban Settlement Council (Republic of Karelia). The charges were based on Zavarkin’s speech made at the meeting in favor of the resignation of the current leader of Karelia, Alexander Khudilainen, in Petrozavodsk on May 20, 2015. As we stated before, we disagree with the introduction of Article 280.1 into the Criminal Code; in our view, it violates the right to freedom of expression. We believe that only calls for violent separatism merit prosecution. However, Zavarkin’s statements are not criminally liable even under this article.

In the second half of July, the criminal case against Daria Polyudova, a Rot Front activist from Krasnodar, under Article 319 (insulting a government official) was terminated due to absence of the event of a crime. As you may remember, the criminal case was based on the post, shared by Polyudova on VKontakte social network in August 2014, “Putin is *** squared;” the post invited readers to express their support of the message with obscene phrases.

In mid-July, it was reported that a criminal case had been opened in Pervouralsk, the Sverdlovsk Region, (evidently, under the Criminal Code Article 282 for inciting religious hatred) against Mufti Fatykh Garifullin, the editor-in-chief of Pervouralsk newspaper Istina (The Truth). The prosecution of the Mufti was based on the August 2013 publication (a reprint of the Kazakh media outlet Our World) of 20 Koran verses (ayats) related to fight against infidels. Publishing of Istina has been suspended by the editors. As stated in our earlier reports, we view attempts by the law enforcement to approach ancient religious literature from the standpoint of modern anti-extremist legislation as absurd. For additional information see our report on an attempt by the Pervouralsk authorities to ban publication of the Hadith.

In early July, the Sovetsky district court of Krasnoyarsk sentenced T. Guzenko to a fine of 100 thousand rubles under Article 282.2 Part 1 (organizing activities of an extremist organization). Guzenko was found guilty of organizing a cell of the banned religious organization Nurcular and conducting meetings to study the works of Said Nursi, which were on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. As you may remember, we view as inappropriate both the ban against books by Turkish theologian Said Nursi and the ban on Nurcular, which has never even existed in Russia – there are simply followers of Nursi, who face unfounded persecution.

In late July, the Zavodskoy district court of Novokuznetsk in the Kemerovo Region delivered a suspended sentence of one year under Article 282.2 Part 2 (participation in an extremist organization) to Zhenishbek Cholponbaev, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, for spreading the teachings of the banned religious organization Tablighi Jamaat. Cholponbaev was found guilty of having, for five years, “studied banned literature, participated in the meetings of like-minded people, where he promoted extremist values.” We view the ban against Tablighi Jamaat as inappropriate; this organization promotes Islam and was never known to issue radical appeals. It must also be noted that the organization is not prohibited and very popular in Kyrgyzstan.

A trial in the case related to Tablighi Jamaat involvement began in mid-July in the Dzerzhinsky District court of Novosibirsk. Sixteen defendants were charged with spreading the ideas of a banned organization, recruitment of supporters and participation in Tablighi Jamaat meetings.

In late July, the Moskovsky district military court of Chelyabinsk delivered a verdict against Rustam Sinakaev, a Muslim resident of Asha. He was found guilty under Article 282.2 Part 2 and Article 205.5 Part 2 (participation in activities of a terrorist organization) and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, to be served in a penal colony, and a fine of 20 thousand rubles. He was found guilty of providing money for publication of extremist literature and other Hizb ut-Tahrir needs in 2011-2014 and of “attempting to engage another Asha resident in the activities of the organization by repeatedly meeting him and conducting religious and political lessons, during which he provided information on the activities of the organization and justified its actions.” In addition, in July, we found out about a new criminal case opened in Chelyabinsk for participating in Hizb ut-Tahrir; it was brought under the Criminal Code Article 205.5 Part 1 (organizing activities of a terrorist organization) against a Muslim, who had already been convicted in 2010 for his participation in Hizb ut-Tahrir activities (i.e., he was a defendant in this case). We believe that many features of Hizb ut-Tahrir movement warrant caution and provide the government with the reason for prohibiting it, but neither its doctrine nor its practice justifies viewing this organization as terrorist and prosecuting its members on terrorism charges.

Administrative Prosecution

In July, we found out that three men were prosecuted under the Administrative Code Article 20.29 for distribution of inappropriately prohibited materials or for possession of such materials with intent do distribute. Vladimir Yeltavsky, the elder of the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Brukhovetskaya village of the Krasnodar Region, was sentenced to 12 days of arrest for distribution of pamphlets but later released, since the decision of the district court was overruled by the regional court. The founder of a local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the town of Teykovo in the Ivanovo Region was fined for possession of illicit pamphlets at home. A resident of the town of Chernushka in the Perm Region paid a fine of one thousand rubles for publishing on his VKontakte page a Muslim book, which was among those inappropriately banned by the Leninsky district court in Orenburg in 2012, and, for unclear reasons, has not been rehabilitated, unlike most other materials banned by the same court decision.

In July, we learned about the three cases of prosecution under the Administrative Code Article 20.3 for demonstration of extremist symbols with no intentions to promote extremism, and they all occurred in the Krasnodar Region. Above-mentioned activist Darya Polyudova was sentenced to five days of administrative arrest (for the second time) for publishing on a social network an image, which included the swastika, intended to criticize the Russian authorities. Proceedings were initiated against another Krasnodar activist, Julia Usach, in connection with several publicly accessible cartoons and de-motivators on her VKontakte page, which featured swastikas. All images were satirical in nature and definitely not intended to promote Nazism. At this time, the court returned the case to the Prosecutor's Office on formal grounds. In Sochi, a local resident was fined for displaying the Shahada (i.e. the Islamic Creed – the statement “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”) in Arabic script on his car window. Law enforcement officers interpreted this sign as a Hizb ut-Tahrir symbol and punished the driver, although it is unclear whether he had any intention to promote Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The owner of a Barnaul pizzeria was fined 20 thousand rubles in July under the Administrative Code Article 6.17 (violation of the laws of the Russian Federation on the protection of children from information harmful to their health and/or development) for lack of content filtering system on his café’s Wi-Fi network; the manager received a motion on the impermissibility of violating the legislation. We oppose prosecuting administrators of cafes, internet cafes, hotels and similar establishments for lack of content filtering, since these places are intended not just for children (who are supervised by their parents), but also for adult users whose rights should not be limited.

Banning Materials for Extremism

In early July, it was reported that, in March, the Troitsk town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region recognized as extremist a number of materials from one of Ichkeria sites, among them an open letter to Mikhail Khodorkovsky by Polina Zherebtsova, the author of a child’s diary about life in war-time Grozny. Zherebtsova writes about war crimes, committed by the federal forces against civilians in Chechnya, and states that, after everything she has been through, she is ashamed of her Russian citizenship “as a shameful stigma of slavery.” From our perspective, the text contains no signs of extremism, and the court's decision to ban it is inappropriate.

In mid-July it was reported that the Kursk regional court repealed the decision, made by Leninsky district court of Kursk in April of last year, which recognized the books What God Tells Us Through Jeremiah (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2010) as extremist. The higher court was guided by the Resolution No. 11 of the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “Concerning Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Regarding Crimes of Extremism” according to which “the criticism of religious associations in and of itself should not be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity”. Thus, the book, which is currently on the Federal List of Extremist Materials under No. 2444, should be excluded from it. We welcome the decision of the Kursk regional court, and we hope that other Jehovah's Witnesses materials, which were inappropriately added to the list, will be taken off it; since we view the practice of such bans as inappropriate, and the persecution of this religious movement in Russia as discrimination.