Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

In mid-January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on the complaint of Dmitry Karuev from Cheboksary, who in May 2012 was placed under arrest for 15 days for petty hooliganism (Article 20.1 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The court found that the Russian authorities violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. Article 20.1 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is not related to anti-extremist legislation, but the case is of interest to us since it pertains to the boundary between peacefully expressing one’s political position and illegal behavior.

On the eve of Vladimir Putin’s inauguration, Karuev, who was an activist of The Other Russia, together with his party comrades installed a portrait of President Putin in front of Putin’s Public Reception Centre. They marked his years in power in the manner of marking the years of a person’s life on a tombstone and laid two carnations at the portrait. Half an hour into the performance, the applicant approached the portrait, picked it up and spat on it. Police officers at the scene did not intervene, but four hours later Karuev was detained and then arrested. The ECHR ruled that spitting on a photo of a politician on the eve of his re-election should be viewed as an expression of political opinion; arrest for petty hooliganism in connection with this action interferes with freedom of expression and was not legally sound in this case. Article 20.1 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses comprises a mandatory combination of two elements: “a breach of public order manifesting a flagrant disrespect for society” and either “obscene language in public places” or “offensive harassment of others” or “destruction or damage to property of others.” Meanwhile, as noted by the ECHR, Karuev's actions were peaceful, and the Russian authorities provided no evidence of these actions causing any public disturbance or negative emotions in passers-by. Moreover, the police officers stationed nearby did not react to Karuev's behavior in any way. The Russian courts also failed to indicate in their rulings how exactly Karuev's actions violated public order – whether he used foul language, harassed anyone or damaged anyone's property. Russia will be obligated to pay Karuev 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage as well as 2,400 euros in respect of legal costs.

Sanctions for Oppositional Activities and Criticism of the Authorities

In late January, Sergei Sosov, a resident of Tula, was arrested for 15 days under Article 20.3 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (public demonstration of the symbols of extremist organizations) for posting the symbols of Alexei Navalny's banned organizations on his social network page.

Meanwhile, in mid-January, a court in Voronezh terminated the proceedings under Article 20.3 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses against local activist Pavel Sychev in the case based on his social network posts with the letter “N” interpreted as a symbol of the same organizations.

The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), the Citizens' Rights Defense Fund (FZPG) and the Alexei Navalny headquarters were recognized as extremist organizations on June 9, 2021. The decision came into force on August 4. We believe that there were no legal grounds to ban Navalny's organizations as extremist, and, accordingly, that sanctions for displaying their symbols are inappropriate.

National Bolshevik Alexander Rybkin was placed under arrest for 14 days in Moscow in late January under Article 20.3 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The case was based on Rybkin’s participation in the Drugie Novosti [Other News] news video posted on the social networks of the unregistered The Other Russia of E. V. Limonov party. According to law enforcement agencies, the emblem of The Other Russia of E. V. Limonov (a hand grenade commonly known as “limonka” crossed by a lightning bolt) is identical to the symbols of the banned National Bolshevik Party (NBP). We view the ban against the NBP, issued in 2007, as inappropriate, so sanctions for displaying its symbols are, in our opinion, inappropriate as well. In addition, the symbols of The Other Russia of E. V. Limonov clearly differ from the well-known symbols of the NBP, and the law provides no punishment for displaying “symbols similar to those of an extremist organization.”

In late January, Sergei Rybin, a resident of Lipetsk, was fined five thousand rubles under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (inciting hatred or enmity against a social group). The charges were based on Rybin's comments on social networks, which contained “aggressive statements” against law enforcement officers and government officials. We do not know what kind of statements were incriminated to Rybin, but we believe that the sanctions were inappropriate unless his posts contained direct calls for violence. As the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pointed out, sanctions in such cases are appropriate only for real threats of violence, but, in general, law enforcement officers should be extremely tolerant of criticism, even harsh criticism. We also add that would like to see the vague concept of “social group” excluded from the anti-extremist legislation.

It was reported in January that, in late December, the Syzran City Court of the Samara Region fined local resident V. Kudryavtseva 10 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for sending to an unnamed institution in March 2021 a leaflet authored by the Novokuybyshevsky All-Russian Central Executive Committee – a community whose members viewed themselves as “citizens of the USSR.” Apparently, the document in question was the address issued by “Soviet deputy” Yuri Slepnyov on the subject of certain “elections” conducted by this community. The address stated that Ministry of Internal Affairs employees and military personnel who dare to oppose the electoral process would be considered oath-breakers and traitors to the Motherland, subject to trial under Article 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code (the “citizens of the USSR” recognize only Soviet laws). It should be noted that the author was also punished for disseminating this address under the same article of the Code of Administrative Offenses in May 2021. We believe that in this case, the threat of future violence based on decisions made by a court that could hypothetically be established by some kind of “restored” government of the USSR is hard to take seriously, especially since the Novokuibyshevsky All-Russian Central Executive Committee was never known to be involved in violent actions. In addition, in our opinion, both law enforcement officers in general, as well as their specific subgroup that could possibly prevent the Soviet elections, should not be considered a vulnerable social group in need of protection from manifestations of hatred.

Sanctions for “Rehabilitation of Nazism"

The Volgograd Regional Court issued a verdict against student Denis Vorontsov in mid-January on charges under Article 354.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (rehabilitation of Nazism, that is, approving the crimes established by the Nuremberg Tribunal) and Article 294 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (interference in the activity of an investigator). The court found him guilty on both charges and imposed a fine of 300 thousand rubles. On May 3, 2020, Vorontsov submitted a request via VKontakte social network to display a photo of Heinrich Müller, the head of the Gestapo, on the Immortal Regiment Online website, claiming that the person on the photo was a certain Gennady Mikhailovsky. The image was shown live on the Immortal Regiment website in a series of photographs of the Great Patriotic War participants on May 12. According to the claim made by the investigation and upheld by the court, Vorontsov “publicly approved the participation of the SS and the Gestapo in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Second World War.” Charge under Article 294 Part 2 of the Criminal Code was based on the fact that, after his interrogation in the regional department of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Vorontsov took his mobile phone, which had been confiscated from him earlier, from the investigator’s office, went home and deleted from the phone the information of evidentiary value in the criminal case on the rehabilitation of Nazism. We believe that qualifying the actions of users who uploaded photos of Nazis to the Immortal Regiment website under Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code is incorrect. In and of itself, uploading photos of Nazi leaders to a website, even on the eve of May 9, does not constitute public approval of the crimes of Nazism, and it could very well be committed as a prank rather than motivated by ideological considerations.

In January, the Main Military Investigation Department of the Russian Investigative Committee opened a case under Article 354.1 Part 4 of the Criminal Code (public desecration of the symbols of Russian military glory, insulting the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland, committed using the Internet by a group of persons in prior agreement). Two defendants in the case were detained and sent to a pre-trial detention center. The case was based on a video recorded by conscripted soldiers of the 10th Separate Brigade of the GRU Special Forces and then posted on Instagram stories. In the video, one of its authors is seen approaching the monument to the fallen Special Forces soldiers, slapping one of the statues in the face, putting each statue in a chokehold and kicking them. Meanwhile, another video participant asked: “Want to bet you can’t knock him down?” We believe that the soldiers' disorderly behavior deserves condemnation, but an internal disciplinary action would have been an appropriate response. Criminal prosecution can be justified only if the actions in question pose a significant danger to society.

Sanctions for “Offending the Feelings of Believers”

In the second half of January, a criminal case was initiated in Moscow under Article 148 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed in order to offend the religious feelings of believers). It was based on the actions of Maria Katanova, a Moscow resident and an active user of social networks. Katanova posted a video featuring a balaclava-clad girl, posing for a photo against the backdrop of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque wearing an unbuttoned coat, a niqab and her underwear. After the case was opened, Katanova wrote on her Instagram page that she had no intention of hurting the feelings of believers and apologized to those offended and insulted by the video. We believe that the case was opened inappropriately.

SOVA Center opposed the introduction of the clause on “offending the feelings of believers” into Article 148 of the Criminal Code, since it is a vague concept that does not and cannot have a clear legal meaning.

Sanctions for Other Criminal Activity

It was reported in January that, on December 8, 2021, the Prosecutor General's Office filed a claim with the Supreme Court of Russia to recognize the Columbine movement as a terrorist organization. The Supreme Court satisfied the claim on February 2. “Columbine” is a common term used to denote massacres in educational institutions. In the course of preparing the case for the hearing, the experts studied the materials distributed by the school shooting fans and found them to contain “linguistic signs of advocating suicidal behavior, the ideology of violence and terrorism and justifying terrorist acts expressed in the form of massacres, shootings, explosions and other actions aimed at mass extermination of people.” Materials promoting mass murder are clearly dangerous and illegal, and law enforcement agencies should combat their distribution. However, the existence of such materials, or even online communities where they are published, gives no reason to believe that Columbine exists as a single organization. In addition, the school-shooting ideology is non-political; school shooters express no demands towards society and government at all. Meanwhile, the federal law “On Counteracting Terrorism” defines terrorism specifically as “the ideology of violence and the practice of influencing decision-making by public authorities.” In our opinion, banning this dangerous phenomenon as a terrorist organization is not based on the law and, therefore, inappropriate. We fear that the designation of Columbine as a terrorist organization will lead to inappropriate criminal prosecutions under the most severe criminal articles against members of thematic communities on social networks, including teenagers as young as 14. In addition, psychological and educational efforts to identify potential shooters and prevent violence in educational institutions will be significantly hampered, as it will subject teachers, social workers, and psychologists to the threat of criminal prosecution for involvement in terrorist activities or failure to report a crime. Meanwhile, thoughtful and active work of psychologists and teachers to address the adolescents’ problems is the key to reducing the level of violence among minors.

Note that the ban on school shootings as a terrorist organization is reminiscent of the decision to ban the Prisoners Criminal Unity (Arestantskoe Ugolovnoe Yedinstvo, AUE), a criminal subculture, as an extremist organization, which, in our opinion, was also not legally sound. The number of criminal cases for continuing the activities of the AUE is growing – we learned about three new cases in January, all of them opened against current inmates based on their activities in colonies of the Samara and Penza regions and a pre-trial detention center in Noginsk of the Moscow Region.

Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers

Jehovah Witnesses

The mass prosecutions against Jehovah's Witnesses continued in January; the believers were charged with involvement in the activities of local religious organizations prohibited as extremist. We believe that these bans had no legal basis.

According to our records, at least six sentences were passed against six Jehovah's Witnesses in January:

The Kamchatka Regional Court reviewed the appeal of Konstantin Bazhenov, his wife Snezhana Bazhenova and Vera Zolotova, who received suspended sentences under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code in 2020, canceled the sentence and acquitted the defendants. This is the second acquittal of Jehovah's Witnesses charged under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code after the ban of their organizations in Russia; Dmitry Barmakin from Vladivostok was the first to be acquitted; it happened in November 2021.

It is worth reminding here that in October 2021, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia adopted a resolution, according to which in criminal proceedings under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code courts should explicitly name specific socially dangerous actions committed by the guilty party, the significance of these actions for continuing or resuming the activities of a prohibited organization and the motives for committing them. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated in the ruling that, in the event of the ban against a religious organization, individual or joint performance of religious rites by its former members should not be interpreted as participation in an extremist organization.

In January, the Pechora City Court of the Komi Republic returned to the prosecutor's office the case of nine Jehovah's Witnesses from Pechora charged under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code: Gennady Polyakevich, Gennady Skutelets, Nikolai Anufriev, Eduard Merinkov, Pavel Ogorodov, Viktor Schannikov, Alexander Vorontsov, Alexander Prilepsky and Sergei Zabora. The case was returned due to violations in the indictment, which reflected only their actions directly related to religious worship with no information about any specifically extremist actions committed by the defendants.

In January, we also learned about new charges against at least seven Jehovah's Witnesses:

Muslims

A criminal case against a resident of Izberbash was initiated under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code in late January in Dagestan. The man was accused of taking part in meetings conducted by the local “cell” of the banned religious association Nurcular and devoted to studying the “ideological sources” of the organization. Nurcular was recognized as an extremist organization in 2008 for promoting the superiority of Islam over other religions. The decision was based on the unjustified bans against the books of Turkish theologian Said Nursi. We believe that Russian Muslims who study Nursi's heritage do not constitute a single organization, and their criminal prosecution under Article 282.2 is unfounded. In the fall of 2021, the Izberbash City Court dismissed several cases under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code, at least some of which were based on the charges of participation in Nurcular.