Lawmaking

On June 27, the president signed a law establishing the responsibility of web search engines for showing links to banned sites. The law introduces Article 13.40 (failure to perform duties by a search engine operator) into the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO). The article punishes search engines for failure to connect to the information system containing data on blocked sites and to fulfill their obligations to stop resolving links to these sites; citizens operating the offending search engines shall be fined 5 thousand rubles, officials – 50 thousand rubles, and legal entities – from 500 to 700 thousand rubles. In addition, Article 19.7.10 CAO (failure to submit information to Roskomnadzor) was augmented with Part 1.1, which punishes hosting providers for failing to submit to Roskomnadzor, in a timely manner, the information identifying their clients who own anonymizing websites or VPN-services. A fine of 30 to 50 thousand rubles has been established for individuals, and of 50 to 300 thousand rubles for legal entities.

On June 25, deputies Sergei Shargunov and Alexei Zhuravlyov introduced in the State Duma a package of two bills providing for decriminalization of certain acts which fall under the provisions of Article 282 Part 1 of the Criminal Code. The Deputies propose moving Part 1 of Article 282 (“actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as abasement of dignity of a person or a group of persons on the basis of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as affiliation to any social group, if these acts have been committed in public or with the use of mass media or information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet”) from the Criminal Code to the CAO; for these purposes they suggest adding a new Article 20.3.1 that provides for imposing an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 10 to 20 thousand rubles, or community service for up to 100 hours, or up to fifteen days of administrative arrest. The Criminal Code is assumed to retain only the second part of Article 282 (“the same actions committed with the use of violence or with the threat of its use and (or) by a person using their official position or by an organized group”); the punishment under it remains the same (up to six years of imprisonment). In the spring of 2017, the government and the Supreme Court already gave a negative response to the proposals made by Shargunov and Zhuravlyov. The deputies had been informed, in particular, about the formal inconsistency of their legislative proposal with the existing legislation and about the fact that their proposed wording of Article 282 of the Criminal Code omits the criteria of publicity and use of the Internet, thus leading to an “extension of the scope of the proposed criminal norm.” The probability of an approval for this bill is extremely low; at best, it can become a starting point for drafting another legislative proposal. We support the idea of reforming the anti-extremist legislation, including decriminalization of some components of current Article 282 of the Criminal Code, but we believe that these changes must be carefully thought out.

On June 14, a plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution “On Certain Issues Related to Using Confiscation of Property in Criminal Proceedings.” In the draft resolution, the Supreme Court inter alia indicated that “any property belonging to the defendant that is an instrument, equipment or other means of committing a crime” (including cell phones, computers, etc.) is subject to confiscation in the criminal cases on extremist or terrorist activity. At the same time, as the Supreme Court noted, if money, valuables or other property were intended for “financing terrorism, extremist activity, an organized group, illegal armed formation or a criminal community (criminal organization),” then in accordance with Article 104.1 Part 1 Paragraph “c” of the Criminal Code, such items are subject to confiscation “regardless of their ownership.” Accordingly, seizure of property for the purpose of securing possible confiscation can be applied not only to the suspects, defendants or individuals materially responsible for their actions, but to any persons, if “there are sufficient grounds to believe” that it was used as an instrument of crime. A court, in its reasoning for the relevant resolution, has to justify its choice of restrictions on the property rights “necessary and sufficient” for ensuring the preservation of the property in question.

Тhe Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

It was reported in June that, on May 14, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) communicated three complaints related to the use of Russian anti-extremist legislation.

They include the complaint of Chelyabinsk resident Konstantin Zharinov, convicted in 2015 under Article 280 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public incitement to extremist activity) for sharing an appeal by Right Sector to “Russians and other enslaved peoples” on his VKontakte (VK) page. Zharinov is a historian specializing in the history of terrorism – according to him, he shared the post due to his professional interest. He didn’t express any solidarity with the Right Sector’s appeal, and, generally, has not used such rhetoric on social networks. The ECHR asked the Russian side whether Zharinov's sentence could be considered an interference with his right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, if so, whether this interference was justified in accordance with Article 10 Paragraph 2 of the Convention, and whether the punishment imposed on him was proportional to his offense.

Alyona Blinova (Elena Romanova), an opposition activist from Cheboksary, complained about the fine she was sentenced to in 2017 under Article 20.29 CAO (mass dissemination of extremist materials), for distribution of the banned (inappropriately, in our opinion) slogan “Orthodoxy or Death.” The activist shared in the “Artpodgotovka - bad news” VK group the opinion of deputy Vitaly Milonov about the prosecution against Dmitry Semenov, the Chuvashia coordinator of the Open Russia (Otkrytaya Rossiya) movement, for disseminating the offending slogan (his complaint is also communicated by the ECHR). Later, the administration of Cheboksary refused to issue Blinova a permit for a mass event, citing the fact that she had faced administrative responsibility under Article 20.29 CAO. In her complaint Blinova pointed out that the Russian side had violated Article 10 and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. Russia will have to answer whether the courts used standards in compliance with the principles of Article 10 of the Convention in Blinova’s case; whether they took into account the context of the publication; whether the legitimate aim had been established for interfering with Blinova's right to freedom of expression; whether the decision was foreseeable, given the fact that Milonov never faced any charges for the slogan in question; whether the courts considered the issue of the proportionality of the punishment. In addition, the ECHR wants to understand whether the legislation, which bans individuals previously prosecuted under “extremist” administrative articles from organizing public events, has any legitimate aim and whether it was proportionate in Blinova’s case.

The ECHR also communicated the complaint of Mikhail Kasimov, the leader of the Perm branch of the Party of People's Freedom (Partiya Narodnoi Svobody, PARNAS), combining it with the complaints of ten other Russian citizens who faced charges under Article 20.3 CAO (propaganda or demonstration of Nazi symbols). All of them had faced various types of punishment for public demonstration of images with Nazi or similar symbols and appealed their sanctions in the ECHR. In most cases they had been charged for posting online various collages, politically oppositional and depicting the Russian state symbols or state leaders, including the president, alongside the Nazi symbols or uniformed Nazi leaders. Some cases follow different scenarios. For example, one of the applicants had been fined for displaying a banner decorated with the Kolovrat symbol during a soccer match, others were punished for publishing historical photographs, posters, or film episodes that featured Nazi symbols. The ECHR, inter alia, raised the question of whether there had been an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression, whether the interference had been prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society, whether the applicants could have foreseen the possibility of punishment for their actions, in particular for their publications made in the distant past. SOVA Center is not familiar with every single case included in the claim, and we do not rule out that demonstration of Nazi symbols could have been aimed at propaganda of the corresponding ideology in some of these cases. However, we are convinced that the sanctions are acceptable only when the symbols are demonstrated for the purpose of propaganda, and the courts must make appropriate decisions, while carefully considering the context. The blanket prohibition on demonstrating extremist symbols should be abolished.

Prosecutions for Incitement to Hatred and Oppositional Statements

On June 5, the Toropets District Court of the Tver Region issued a verdict in the case of local resident Vladimir Egorov, charged with public incitement to extremist activities via the Internet (Article 280 Part 2 of the Criminal Code). The opposition activist was found guilty and received a suspended sentence of two years followed by a three-year probation period and the ban on moderating web sites. The court also decided to remove the CPU from his personal computer. The prosecution was based on Yegorov’s post in the “Toropets Citizens” VK public group, which he had moderated. The post contained a photo of Putin and the text stating that propaganda directed by intelligence services was aimed at exonerating the head of state, while shifting the blame for all government blunders to other officials. The author urged “not to be led astray” by such propaganda tricks, and declared that “the main Kremlin rat with its-friends and partners in crime should be brought down.” We believe that such abstract, albeit aggressive, anti-government statements by ordinary citizens pose no significant danger, since they cannot be implemented in reality. Criminal prosecution in such cases, in our opinion, is inappropriate – removal of a provocative post would have been quite sufficient.

On the same day it became known that a case under Article 205.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public calls for terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism) was initiated in the Kirov Region against a 27-year-old penal colony inmate. According to the investigators, in January/February, the defendant, who was “serving a sentence in the correctional facility, publicly justified terrorism in the presence of other inmates, expressing the words of approval and support for the actions of militants during the news segment on the criminal activities of the terrorist organization.” We have doubts whether the defendant’s actions constituted a crime, since the extent, to which his statements could be considered public, is unclear. It is unlikely that they were heard by a wide audience; but we have no information about the exact number of prisoners present during the TV show.

Andrei Novosyolov, a resident of Chaykovsky in the Perm Region, was fined 1,000 rubles in June under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO for publishing a video of an altered episode from the Seventeen Moments of Spring TV series. A supporter of the nationalist Great Fatherland party, Novosyolov faced responsibility as a result of his online conflict with Ilya U. – resident of the same town and a supporter of Alexei Navalny. According to Ilya, Novosyolov initially complained to the police that his opponent had posted on his page the information about the invasion of Poland by Germany and the USSR in 1939, illustrating the post with an image that contained a swastika. Novosyolov viewed this publication as offensive and distorting the role of the USSR in World War II, but the law enforcement agencies did not see it as a crime. In May, a video appeared on Novosyolov’s page – the scene from the Seventeen Moments of Spring, in which Stierlitz hits Holthoff on the head with a bottle – with a photo of Ilya U. superimposed upon the Holtoff's face. Ilya filed a complaint about the video with the prosecutor's office; subsequently, an administrative case was initiated. Novosyolov denied being guilty of administrative offense and challenged the decision in the Perm Regional Court. This curious case, once again, proves the problematic nature of the current legislative norms that allow punishment for demonstration of Nazi symbols not intended as Nazi propaganda.

Pavel Chernov, an activist in the Alexei Navalny headquarters in Pskov, was summoned to the meeting of Commission on Minors' Affairs on June 7 and written up under Article 5.35 Part 1 CAO (improper performance of parental responsibilities). The charges against Chernov were based on the video “Discoführer,” found on a social network page of his 11-year-old son. The video is a compilation of several photographs and movie stills, mostly featuring the image of Hitler and edited to create an impression that the Führer is moving in the rhythm of the accompanying dance soundtrack (Mo-Do’s “Eins, Zwei, Polizei”). One of the film stills contains several swastika images. We believe that this video is humorous in its character and, in and of itself, contains no propaganda.

The Ustinovsky District Court of Izhevsk sentenced local resident Larisa Fefilova to a fine of two thousand rubles on June 19 under Article 20.29 CAO (mass distribution of extremist materials) for sharing the documentary Assassination of Russia, directed by Jean-Charles Deniau and Charles Gazelle and based on the book Blowing Up Russia by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, on VK in March 2018. The documentary was included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials on March 20, 2018 and published on Fefilova’s page on March 23; she stated that she had not known that the film had been recognized as extremist. We regard the ban against the film as inappropriate.

Prosecutions against Religious Organizations and Believers

On June 8, the Moscow District Military Court sentenced Farrukh Mamayusupov, a native of Kyrgyzstan, under Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of an organization recognized as terrorist). He faces 10 years in a maximum-security penal colony for participation in the activity of the Islamic radical party Hizb ut-Tahrir. Mamayusupov was arrested in December 2016 among twelve Muslims detained in Moscow and the Moscow Region on suspicion of their Hizb ut-Tahrir involvement. We view the charges of terrorism against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers, based only on the fact of their party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.), as inappropriate.  

On May 30, the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria overturned the decision, issued in March by the Prokhladnensky District Court, to block four Jehovah's Witnesses websites including jw-russia.org. The decision to block access to the sites was based on the fact that they contained “various sections, publications, magazines, books, videos, and news about the Jehovah's Witnesses religious organization.” Representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to participate in the court proceedings.

Meanwhile, persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses resulting from the ban on their communities in Russia continued in a number of regions. The law enforcement agencies have been filing new criminal cases against the believers under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2 (organizing the activities of an organization banned for extremism and participation in it).

A preliminary investigation in a criminal case on participation in the activities of the local Jehovah's Witnesses community was completed in late May in Oryol. Reportedly, the defendant in the case, Oryol resident Sergei Skrynnikov, has been under travel restrictions. The Jehovah's Witnesses community of Oryol was recognized as extremist in 2016; the case of Denmark citizen Dennis Christensen, who has remained under arrest for over a year on charges of organizing the community activities after the ban, is now being considered in court.

Three Jehovah's Witnesses – Konstantin Petrov, Evgeny Zyablov and Sergei Erkin – were detained on May 30 in Magadan, in the course of the investigation in a criminal case under Article 282.2 Part 1. Ivan Puyda was detained in Khabarovsk on the same day, as part of the same criminal case. All four were later put under arrest.

It was reported on June 4 that a criminal case had been initiated for continuing the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Tomsk. Sergei Klimov, age 48, was detained and later put under arrest for the period of two months. The day before his detention, homes of other Tomsk believers were searched; law enforcement officers broke into houses, seized equipment, books, papers, money and bank account papers, while failing to document these actions appropriately. About 30 people, including an 83-year-old woman, were detained and taken to the local Center for Combating Extremism for questioning; one of the believers was hospitalized.

The searches of Jehovah's Witnesses’ homes also took place in Saratov and in the village of Shirokoye of the Saratov Region on June 12. Law enforcement officers broke down the apartment doors, seized all the equipment, “books, photographs, notebooks, personal savings, bank account papers, and international passports.” In addition, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, in two cases banned literature had been planted in the apartments during the search. Over 10 people were taken to the FSB for interrogation. Believers Konstantin Bazhenov, Felix Makhammadiev and Alexei Budenchuk were arrested under Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code.

On June 19, representatives of Russian human rights organizations issued a collective statement demanding the end to the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for their religious activities, the release from custody for the believers charged under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code, and the overturn of the Supreme Court's decision of April 20 on liquidation and prohibition of activities of Jehovah's Witnesses organizations using the existing procedural grounds. SOVA Center believes that the Supreme Court’s decision, as well as persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses in general, has not been legally substantiated; we view it as a manifestation of religious discrimination. According to our information, as of June 1, 2018, 21 Jehovah's Witnesses remained in pre-trial detention on the charges of continuing the activities of their banned communities.