Lawmaking

It was reported In July, that, on May 17, 2018, a group of deputies from the United Russia party introduced in the State Duma a package of two bills on administrative and criminal prosecution for failure to comply with court decisions banning distribution of information. The drafts indicate not just unreliable or defamatory information, but also about other information, which the courts prohibit for distribution in accordance with the laws “On Protecting Children from Information That Is Harmful to Their Health and Development”, “On Information” and “On Mass Media”, that is, including the materials banned on the basis of anti-extremist legislative norms. The authors of the proposal believe that the sanctions, prescribed by the current legislation, are insufficiently harsh; they suggest increasing sanctions for failure to eliminate banned information, up to criminal responsibility involving real prison terms. At the same time, as stated by the authors of the initiative, it is necessary to use the mechanism of administrative prejudice in this case – that is, punishment under the criminal article should only follow in the cases of persistene non-compliance with the court decision. The government and the Supreme Court were generally positive toward the proposal, making only a few technical remarks. The opinion of the Duma Committee on State Construction and Legislation was also positive. The date for the first reading of the legislative package has not yet been scheduled. In our opinion, selective increase of the sanctions for non-fulfillment of court decisions specifically in the field of information distribution indicates that the Russian authorities continue to view this sphere as the one presenting a particular threat and in need of increasingly strict control.

On July 4, deputy Valery Rashkin from the Communist Party submitted to the State Duma a draft legislation to amend the federal law “On Combating Extremist Activity” with the new article “Specifics of Applying the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Combating Extremist Activity to Sociological Research,” worded as follows: “Activities related to conducting a sociological survey cannot be considered extremist. The questions of qualitative and quantitative nature, asked in the course of a scientific or sociological study, as well as the materials about the social and political views of citizens collected as a result of such a study, cannot be recognized as extremist.” In our opinion, there is no need to prescribe an exception for the activities of sociologists in the law “On Combating Extremist Activity.” There is a need to clarify a number of vague concepts that appear in the law, and also to ensure that Russian law enforcement agencies and courts take into account the context and the aims of public statements, when applying anti-extremist norms. Subsequently, the risk that scientific activity could become a target for arbitrary prosecution, as well as the danger of possible unhindered distribution of incendiary materials under the guise of scientific publications or opinion polls, will be minimized.

Тhe Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

On July 17, the European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling regarding the complaint of the members of the Pussy Riot band regarding the prosecution against them for their action in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The court ruled that Russia had to pay to Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Ekaterina Samutsevich a compensation for moral harm and legal costs. The ECHR found that with respect to the applicants the following provisions had been violated: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture), paragraph 3 of Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person), paragraphs 1 and 3(c) of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and, finally, Article 10 of the Convention (right to freedom of expression). The violation of Article 10, according to the ECHR, was evident from the fact that the Russian courts had failed to provide the public with relevant and sufficient grounds justifying the criminal punishment and imprisonment of Pussy Riot participants, and the sanctions imposed on them were not proportional to the declared legitimate aim. In addition, the ECHR found that the ban on Pussy Riot videos did not meet the criteria for an urgent public need, was disproportionate to the stated legitimate aim and, accordingly, such an interference in the rights of the group’s participants had not been necessary in a democratic society.

Prosecutions for Incitement to Hatred and Oppositional Statements

At the end of July, the case against Lydia Bainova – a local resident, organizer of folklore festivals and popularizer of Khakass culture – opened under Part 2 of Article 280 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activities on the Internet) was brought to trial in Abakan. Bainova was prosecuted for her post on VKontakte. According to Bainova, she posted on the social network after, at the entrance to the playroom in one of the city cafes, the children said to her and her daughter: “Only Russians can come in here.” In her post, Bainova expressed her protest against the fact that people “to whom this land belongs” were not respected in Khakassia, and characterized the degree of her indignation, adding: “In such moments, it feels like we need to arrange a revolution, a takeover! Return power and land to our people! Take it back in a fight!” In our opinion, such emotional statements should not be regarded as calls for extremist activity representing a significant social danger and deserving of criminal prosecution. An order to remove this entry from the page would have constituted a proportional reaction by law enforcement agencies.

In late July, it became known that a criminal case under Article 282 of the Criminal Code had been initiated against activist Rafis Kashapov of the Tatar nationalist movement. According to the investigation, “he posted on his personal social network page on the Internet the text and images, which, according to the results of the examination, incited hatred and enmity based on race, nationality, language, origin, attitude toward religion or toward a social group.” In 2015, Kashapov was convicted under Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code – in our opinion, inappropriately – for calls to separatism and sentenced to three years in a minimum-security colony. Upon his release, fearing that he might face administrative supervision, Kashapov left for Ukraine, and then for the UK, where he asked for political asylum. In March 2018, Kashapov, together with representatives of the Ukrainian Erzya community, announced the creation of the public platform Free Idel-Ural, advocating the creation of an “integrative association of independent states of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, Udmurtia, Mari El and Erziano Mokshania (Mordovia).” The specific incriminating posts by Kashapov that served as a basis for this case have not yet been revealed. On his social network pages he criticizes the policy of the Russian authorities and characterizes Russia as a state that has been expanding for centuries at the expense of its neighboring peoples; he often criticizes what he perceives as passive political positions of Russian citizens. However, we found no xenophobic rhetoric in Kashapov’s statements and see no grounds for prosecuting the activist under Article 282 of the Criminal Code.

It became known in late July that 24-year-old student Ibrahim Yangulbaev has been under arrest in Grozny, charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to social hatred). He received no medical care, and, for this reason, his life was in danger. Yangulbaev is accused of inciting hatred against the social group “Russian military personnel;” the case is being considered by the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. The prosecution against Yangulbayev was based on his VKontakte publication of the photographs of civilians (both Chechens and Russians) killed during the first and second Chechen campaigns. We had no opportunity to review Yangulbaev’s publications and cannot judge their content. However, SOVA Center believes that Article 282 of the Criminal Code, insofar as it relates to the incitement of hatred on the basis of belonging to a particular social group, should be aimed at protecting only particularly vulnerable social groups, and the military personnel does not constitute such a group.

Two residents of Barnaul, 23-year-old Maria Motuznaya (Frolova) and 19-year-old Daniil Markin, reported in late July, that they were being prosecuted for publishing memes on VKontakte.

Motuznaya faces charges under Article 282 of the Criminal Code – “humiliation of representatives of the Negroid race” and “propaganda of the superiority of the Caucasoid race over the Negroid race” – for sharing two images that did not contain calls for aggressive actions. We doubt that their publication merited criminal prosecution. In our opinion, humiliation of dignity of a group of persons, currently included in Article 282 of the Criminal Code, must be decriminalized as an act that poses no significant public danger.

In addition, Motuznaya has been charged with insulting the feelings of believers (Article 148 Part 1 of the Criminal Code). The signs of this crime were found in two images: on one of them, Jesus Christ lets the cigarette smoke pass through a hole in the palm of his hand; another depicts a procession of the Cross on a worn-down road with the caption “Russia’s Two Greatest Problems” (quoting the proverb “Russia has two problems – fools and bad roads”). Markin was charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for publishing eleven atheistic memes. Similarly to the images published by Motuznaya, they contain no signs of inciting hatred towards Christians and, in our opinion, provide no grounds for criminal prosecution. As for insulting the feelings of believers, we believe that this concept, which has no clear legal meaning, does not belong in the Criminal Code.

In mid-July, a magistrate’s court of the Uraisky Court District of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Ugra fined local resident Dmitry Kolganov 30,000 rubles under Article 5.26 Part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (deliberate public desecration of objects of religious veneration). According to the court, the desecration consisted of sharing a video clip in VKontakte – a fragment of the musical parody video featuring a fictional priest character who worshiped money. Kolganov pleaded guilty and repented. We believe that Kolganov was prosecuted inappropriately, since he was not the video’s creator and no actual defilement of cult objects ever took place – the video showed no action against the cross, while the appearance of clergymen or their actions cannot be considered objects of religious veneration.

In mid-July, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia upheld the decision of the Novocheboksarsk City Court, which sentenced Alexei Glukhov, a lawyer with the Agora International Human Rights Group, to a fine of 1,000 rubles under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (mass dissemination of extremist materials) in May 2018. The prosecution was based on a comment under Glukhov’s Facebook post, which was published in November 2016. A video banned as extremist was attached to the comment. Glukhov said that he did not look through all the comments to his post and only found out about the problematic comment during a court session. However, the court ruled that “Alexei Glukhov, as a user of the account, had to possess sufficient circumspection and good user practices to remove this video due to its inclusion on the lists of materials considered extremist.” From our point of view, the lawyer was fined without due justification, since the publisher of prohibited material is the responsible party for the act of distribution.

In late July, Igor Popov, the head of the Vladivostok branch of the Other Russia party, was fined 1,000 rubles under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO (propaganda or public demonstration of Nazi symbols). The charges were based on Popov’s VKontakte publication of 2013 – an image of Vladimir Putin on a background of a Russian tricolor flag with a swastika. We believe that Popov was fined inappropriately – the intent of such images, which are widespread on social networks, is to criticize the government policy, rather than to advocate Nazism, and their publishers should not be prosecuted. However, the current Russian legislation allows punishment for any demonstration of Nazi symbols or symbols of extremist organizations, without taking into account the context of such display and the intent of the person displaying it.

Prosecutions against Religious Organizations and Believers

We learned in July that the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk sentenced the local resident Andrei Dedkov to a fine of 250,000 rubles in early June, having found him guilty of organizing the activities of the extremist association Nurcular (under Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code). According to the investigation, Dedkov organized a cell of Nurcular supporters in Krasnoyarsk and arranged religious meetings, where he discussed with believers books by the Turkish theologian Said Nursi. Earlier, in 2015, Dedkov was sentenced to a fine under the same article, but released from punishment due to the expiry of prescription period.

In early July, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Novosibirsk sentenced Imam Kamil Odilov to two years in prison under the same article. The charges against Odilov were based on the fact that, after his conviction in a similar case in 2013, he continued his activity, resuming his “home madrassa” classes, and thereby involving new members in the activity of the cell of the banned organization. At the same time, according to the investigation, he kept at home, used during classes and quoted Nursi’s books recognized as extremist.

We view as inappropriate both the ban against the Nursi books and the prohibition of Nurcular, which has never existed in Russia at all – there are only individual believers, who face arbitrary persecution for studying books by Nursi, which contain no signs of extremism.

In mid-July, the Nikulinsky District Court of Moscow issued a sentence to six Muslims under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code for participation in the activities of the Tablighi Jamaat movement, recognized as extremist. Five believers were sentenced to two years in prison; one more, a retired border guard officer from Kyrgyzstan, pleaded not guilty and was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment. The defendants were charged for participating in classes, where they studied the works of the Tablighi Jamaat ideologists, and for participation in developing measures to ensure secrecy of their religious studies. In our opinion, the ban against Tablighi Jamaat and the persecution of its supporters are inappropriate, since the movement is engaged in peaceful propaganda of Islam and has not been implicated in any calls for violence.

The Moscow District Military Court, during its visiting session in the Leningrad District Military Court in late July, sentenced eight Muslims accused of continuing the activities of the “St. Petersburg cell” of the banned Islamic radical party Hizb ut-Tahrir seized in 2013 (the cell’s founders had been convicted earlier). All eight were found guilty under Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of a terrorist organization) and sentenced to real prison terms from 5 years in a minimum security colony to 10.5 years in a maximum security colony. They were also found guilty under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code, but released from payment of the corresponding fine due to the expiry of prescription period under this article.

Earlier, in mid-July, the same court sentenced St. Petersburg resident Alla Bespalova to 5 years of imprisonment for participation in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir. According to the materials in the case, Bespalova was talking about Hizb ut-Tahrir on social networks, recruited friends into the party, gave them the party literature and “imposed ideological views.” She pleaded guilty, and the case was examined using a special trial procedure.

On July 30, the Privolzhsky District Military Court sentenced 21 defendants in the case related to their Hizb ut-Tahrir involvement during its visiting session in the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Ufa. Ten defendants were convicted under Article 205.5 Part 1 of the Criminal Code for organizing the activities of a terrorist organization, eleven more – under Part 2 of Article 205.5 for participation in such organization; the majority were also charged under Article 30 Part 1 and Article 278 of the Criminal Code (preparation for the forcible seizure of power). The defendants are facing prison terms from 5 to 24 years with a fine in the amount of 100 to 700 thousand rubles. The unprecedentedly long periods of imprisonment in these sentences under Part 1 of Article 205.5 should be noted. The Muslims, charged in this case, were arrested in Ufa in February 2015. Human rights defenders have reported numerous violations in the course of the investigation including the use of torture against the defendants.

We view prosecutions against Hizb ut-Tahrir members on anti-terrorist articles merely on the basis of their party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.) conducted with no purpose to commit terrorist acts as inappropriate.

In July 2018, it was reported that a criminal case regarding the continuation of activities of the Faizrakhmanist community, recognized as extremist, was under investigation in Tatarstan. Five people are being investigated in this case. Rustam Galeyev and Galimyan Khazetdinov, charged under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code, are under arrest; according to the investigators, they had recruited members into the religious group, organized its training sessions where they studied forbidden religious literature, called for avoiding medical care and civil duties, and raised money for community activities. The Muslim community, founded by former deputy Mufti of Tatarstan Faizrakhman Sattarov, was recognized as an extremist organization in 2013 after the relevant agencies conducted an investigation of the community and found out that its members were leading an isolated way of life, were forbidden from seeking help from medical institutions and from sending children to schools. Such situations are not subject to anti-extremist legal regulation. As far as we know, the community led an insulated but not aggressive way of life; therefore we view the decision to recognize its extremist as inappropriate.

Law enforcement authorities continue to increase the scope of prosecutions against Jehovah’s Witnesses under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code for continuing the activities of their local communities, which were banned as extremist in 2017 – inappropriately, in our opinion.  The opening of criminal cases is followed by house searches with confiscation of equipment and nighttime interrogations of believers, including elderly people. Law enforcement representatives often break into homes, knocking out doors, and engaging in rough treatment of the residents – believers were injured in at least three cases.

We found out in July that the FSB of Russia opened criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 282.2 against Gennady Shpakovsky and other unidentified persons in the Pskov Region in late May. Shpakovsky was put under travel restrictions.

Four believers in Shuya, the Ivanovo Region, were put under travel restrictions in late June due to new criminal charges. According to the information available to us, Elena Mikhailova (the wife of the previously arrested Dmitry Mikhailov) and Svetlana Shishina were charged under Article 282.2 Part 1 and Article 282.3 Part 1 (financing the activities of an extremist organization). Alexei A. was charged under Part 2 of Article 282.2; Svetlana P. became a suspect under Article 282.2 Part 1 and Article 282.3 Part 1. As part of the case, the law enforcement authorities questioned the 10-year-old girl forcing her to disclose her family’s religious affiliation. Her mother was threatened with charges under Article 150 of the Criminal Code (involving a minor in the commission of a crime).

In early July, at the Krasnoyarsk airport, FSB officers detained Andrei Stupnikov; he was arrested the next day as a defendant under Part 1 of Article 282.2. The court used the fact that Stupnikov had been planning to attend a congress of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, where he could have asked for asylum, to justify its decision on preventive detention.

At the same time, Sergei Polyakov and his wife Anastasia Polyakova were arrested in Omsk. They are charged under Part 2 of Article 282.2. Sergei Polyakov was beaten up when he was seized.

At the same time, the criminal case under Article 282.2 was reported in Lensk, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Local resident Igor Ivashin became a defendant in the case and was put under travel restrictions.

In mid-July, four believers were charged under different parts of Article 282.2 in Penza. The court ruled to place Vladimir Alushkin in pre-trial detention; Vladimir Kulyasov, Andrei Magliv and Denis Timoshin were placed under house arrest.

In the second half of July, searches were carried out in at least three Jehovah’s Witnesses residences in Blagoveshchensk, the Amur Region. One of the believers was charged under Part 2 of Article 282.2.

At the same time, two believers – Sergei Britvin (who suffers a disability) and Vadim Levchuk – were arrested in Kemerovo and charged under Part 2 of Article 282.2. During searches, conducted as a part of the investigation, the officers of the local FSB Department stormed one of the apartments from the balcony, despite the fact that the owner had opened the door; she was cut by the shards of broken glass and suffered the forehead and hand injuries.

In late July, the Kostroma Regional Prosecutor's Office announced the opening of a criminal case under Article 282.2 Parts 1 and 2. A married couple, which allegedly continued to hold meetings of the local community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, are the suspects in the case. 22-year-old Sergei Raiman was put under arrest by the court; his wife Valeria has been facing preventive measures in the form of a ban on certain actions, such as leaving her home at night, communicating with the defendants in the case, sending and receiving mail, using the Internet and other means of communication.

At the same time, two new criminal cases for continuing the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses organizations were initiated in Vladivostok and in Nadezhdinsky District of Primorye Region. As reported by the believers, during house searches in Razdolnoye, the Nadezhdinsky District, law enforcement officers hit the 75-year-old apartment owner in the face. In another apartment, in addition to the female owner, the officers found seven people aged 70 and over, including disabled persons. One of the women fell ill and ended up in intensive care. Dmitry Barmakin was arrested in Vladivostok as a defendant charged under Article 282.2 Part 1.

In the last days of July, the spouses Mikhail Popov and Elena Popova were detained n Vilyuchinsk of the Kamchatka Region. Mikhail Popov was arrested by the city court, his wife was put under house arrest.

In addition, in July the Federal List of Extremist Materials added 19 Jehovah's Witnesses publications, banned by the decision of the Vyborg City Court and the Leningrad Regional Court in 2017 and decision of the Moscow Regional Court in January 2018. Among them is The Holy Scripture: the New World Translation (2014), that is, the Bible in the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation. Roskomnadzor added 11 Internet pages with the Jehovah’s Witnesses materials, including jw-russia.org (the website of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia) to the Unified Registry of Banned Websites in late July. The decision to block these sites was made by the Kuybyshev District Court of Omsk in March 2018.