Misuse of Anti-Extremism in August 2022

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in August 2022.

Sanctions for Discrediting the Actions of the Russian Government Agencies and Armed Forces

In August, the practice of bringing citizens to justice for discrediting the use of Russian armed forces and government agencies abroad continued. We would like to remind you that, in our opinion, the adopted legislation penalizing such actions – Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) and Article 280.3 of the Criminal Code (CC) – constitutes an unreasonable restriction of the right to freedom of expression intended to suppress criticism of the official political course. Therefore, we view sanctions under these articles for statements that contain no direct calls for violence as inappropriate. According to the Agora International Human Rights Group, as of the second half of August, the total number of cases considered by courts under Article 20.3.3 CAO has reached 3500. People face sanctions for displaying posters, slogans on their clothes, offline and online statements, distribution of printed materials, graffiti on walls, etc.

In August, we became aware of three new criminal cases under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC (public actions aimed at discrediting the Russian Armed Forces, committed after having faced administrative responsibility). The first was filed against Andrei Pavlov from Tula. In March, he was fined under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for attaching to his jacket a Ukrainian flag, a tag with an anti-war statement as well as a red-and-black flag described in the court order as the “Cossack protest banner.” The criminal prosecution relates to publications Pavlov posted on the Internet. He has been released on bail.

The suspect in the second case was Igor Ivanov (Aikhal Ammosov), a musician from Yakutsk. On August 15, he tried to place an anti-war banner on a building roof in the city center. He was also placed under travel restrictions. Earlier, Ivanov had been fined three times under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO.

The third case was initiated at the end of August against former Yekaterinburg mayor Yevgeny Roizman. It was based on a video posted online by Roizman. The court chose a measure of restraint for the politician in the form of a ban on certain actions. Earlier, Roizman had been fined three times under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for his online publications.

Sanctions for Vandalism

Several criminal cases related to the “special military operation” on the territory of Ukraine were initiated under Article 214 CC (vandalism). We include in our monitoring only the cases, in which law enforcement agencies charge defendants with vandalism motivated by ideological or political hostility (Article 214 Part 2), although the presence or absence of the hostility motive in such cases obviously depends solely on the discretion of specific law enforcement officers, and not on the actual circumstances of a particular incident. We doubt the validity of prosecution for vandalism motivated by political or ideological hatred in principle. We believe that, in most cases, these actions represent a form of political propaganda, albeit associated with inflicting material damage. Manifestations and even incitement of political hostility per se are not criminalized. Therefore, unless political vandalism is associated with propaganda of violence and xenophobia, the degree of its public danger depends on the extent of material damage caused by it. We believe that the relevant cases under Article 214 CC, in which property damage is minor, should be terminated for insignificance. If a case cannot be dropped but the damage is still relatively small, it might be helpful to introduce an article similar to Article 7.17 CAO covering the destruction or damage of other people's property or to clarify the existing article by adding vandalism that did not cause major damage.

One such case was filed in August against Alexei Arbuzenko from Tolyatti, who threw paint on banners that depicted Russian soldiers as well as wrote certain “cynical statements” on these banners. In another one, filed in late August, Alexander Nizamov was charged with participating in an action that marked six months since the start of the “special operation – activists colored the water of the “Music of Glory” fountain in Kuzminki red.

The investigation on two additional cases of the same kind, which were not previously known, was also reported in August as completed. In Kemerovo, the case of a student, accused of pouring paint over banners placed in the city on Victory Day, was brought to court. In Blagoveshchensk, the investigation was completed in the case of Pavel Kambolin, who, according to the investigators, placed writings that discredited the actions of the Russian armed forces on five objects of urban infrastructure. Both defendants had previously faced administrative responsibility, in particular, under Article 20.3.3 CAO.

A verdict in another similar case was issued in August. A court in St. Petersburg sentenced Nikita Chirkov to a year of restriction of freedom. On March 23, Chirkov painted graffiti – a crossed-out letter “Z," an equal sign, and a swastika in black paint – on the pedestal of the Chernyshevsky monument.


Sanctions for “Rehabilitating Nazism” and Equating the Actions of the USSR and the Third Reich

Most of the law enforcement practice under Article 354.1 CC (rehabilitation of Nazism) in August pertained to the desecration of memorial structures. Such acts are often qualified under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC (desecration of the symbols of Russian military glory insulting the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland) or Part 4 of the same article (the same actions committed by a group of persons or using the Internet). While accepting that such actions in most cases are worthy of public condemnation, we nevertheless believe that criminal prosecution can be justified only for acts that pose a significant danger to society. Meanwhile, “desecration” of monuments, even if this term is understood wider than direct physical damage, is already covered under Article 214 CC (vandalism) in cases of significant public danger. Article 354.1 CC provides for a more severe maximum punishment for desecration of symbols of military glory, which we see as disproportionate to the degree of public danger of such actions. In addition, Russian legislation has yet to define the list of symbols of military glory. As for insulting the memory of non-specified “defenders of the Fatherland,” we believe that criminal prosecution for acts defined in such abstract categories fails to meet the international legal human rights standards.

In early August, Turkish citizens Ercan Kargın, Mustafa Ar and Ibrahim Aytekin received a year of imprisonment in a settlement colony; they were found guilty in Mari El under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC. The court established that, on February 21, they wiped their shoes on the pedestal of the Eternal Flame in Yoshkar-Ola. Aytekin also “took a pose that imitated urination on a five-pointed star with the Eternal Flame torch.”

In the Kaluga Region, Kirill Yefimov, a student from Maloyaroslavets, was sentenced to two years in a settlement colony under the same part of the same article. On the night of May 18–19, 2022, while drunk, he urinated on the Eternal Flame on Victory Square in Kaluga. Upon learning that an acquaintance had photographed this moment, Yefimov asked to send him a photo, which he then posted as his profile photo on VKontakte.

At the end of August, the Stavropol Regional Court issued another verdict under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC: Andrei Yenenko and Arsen Lekarev received two and a half and two years respectively in a settlement colony. On March 26, they lit cigarettes from the Eternal Flame in Nevinnomyssk, threw flowers left by the monument into the fire, tried to blow the fire out and urinated on it. The young men’s actions were caught on surveillance cameras, and the recording was subsequently published on VKontakte. A minor, who was with them, had been already sentenced to a year in a juvenile correctional colony.

Several new similar cases were initiated in August. In Buryatia, a case was opened under Article 354.1 Part 3 CC based on the fact that two young people had extinguished the Eternal Flame in Ulan-Ude by pouring unspecified liquid on it.

In Crimea, Yulia Makartsova faced sanctions under the same part of the same article. The inebriated young woman climbed onto the pedestal of the Eternal Flame in Kerch and danced there; then she threw on the gas burner a commemorative wreath, which melted and extinguished the flame.

In Mordovia, the case under Article 354.1 Part 4 was initiated based on a photograph posted on a social network, which depicted three teenagers with their pants lowered posing next to the Eternal Flame in the industrial township of Zubova Polyana. The teens in the photograph were two local residents born in 2007 and 2008 and a resident of the Moscow Region born in 2006.

A similar case was opened in the Voronezh Region based on a photo taken by two girls in the Heroes of the Great Patriotic War Memorial Park in the city of Kalach. The girls were photographed with their right hands thrown up in a Nazi salute. It is unclear whether the girls' actions were dictated by ideological reasons or pure hooliganism, but they were found to be 12 and 13 years of age, so they cannot face criminal responsibility.

In August, we were also informed about the case initiated under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC back in July against Chelyabinsk activist Pyotr Borovinsky, who had already been named a defendant in the case under Article 207.3 Part 1 CC (dissemination of deliberately false information about the Armed Forces of Russia). The new case was opened based on videos he posted on VKontakte on May 9 and 10, 2022, which, according to the law enforcement, distorted the event of the annual solemn parade on Red Square. Most likely, the videos in question were posted by the activist on his public channel “Kopeysk without Putin's Fascism” (later blocked in Russia and renamed “VPN1 Russia without Putin's Fascism”). Posts in this public channel included a video montage that portrayed parade participants as marauders as well as a video edited in such a way that army units at the parade seemed to be shouting “Glory to Ukraine!” The channel also posted a parody of the song “Victory Day” and a video of a certain woman talking about the inappropriateness of holding a Victory Day parade in connection with a “special military operation.” We tend to believe that prosecution against Borovinsky under 354.1 CC is inappropriate. The videos he posted, the ones we were able to see, can be perceived as provocative, but their purpose was political criticism not rehabilitating Nazism. Expressing a negative attitude towards the celebration of Victory Day poses no public danger and should not become a reason for criminal prosecution unless accompanied by calls for violence, hatred and discrimination.

Article 13.48 Part 1 CAO (equating the actions of the USSR and Nazi Germany during World War II or denying the decisive role of the Soviet people in the defeat of Nazi Germany) was used in August at least once. In late August, politician Leonid Gozman was placed under arrest for 15 days under this article. The charges were based on Gozman’s Facebook post made in 2020. Commenting on the initiative to introduce a legal ban on equating the actions of the USSR and the Third Reich, Gozman noted in his post that “they cannot be called equal,” since, in his opinion, Stalin was even worse than Hitler, and the NKVD was more frightening than the SS. We consider the sanctions against Gozman inappropriate – he did not justify the crimes of Nazism, did not call for violence, hatred or discrimination, and, in our opinion, sanctions for criticizing the policy of the USSR or certain aspects of the country’s history are completely unjustified.


Criminal Prosecution for Association with Navalny's Organizations

At the end of August, a case under Article 282.3 Part 1 CC (financing of extremist activities) was opened against Andrei Zayakin, a co-founder of the Dissernet project. The case was based on the fact of the transfer of one thousand rubles he made to the Anti-Corruption Fund (FBK) on August 5, 2021 – that is, the day after the decision to ban the fund came into force. By court decision, Zayakin faces restraining measures in the form of a ban on certain activities. This is the first such case known to us. We believe that there were no sufficient legal grounds for banning the FBK, the Citizens' Rights Defense Fund (FZPG) or the Alexei Navalny Headquarters as extremist organizations. Therefore, we consider the prosecution of Zayakin inappropriate.


Sanctions for Displaying Banned Symbols

Numerous administrative cases reported in August under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO (public display of prohibited symbols) that we regard as inappropriate were associated with the election campaign that took place before the single voting day in September. Individuals charged under this article lose their right to be elected for a year from the moment when the decision on an administrative offense comes into force.

The majority of these cases targeted municipal candidates in various districts of Moscow, as well as current municipal deputies and activists, some of whom were not even planning to run. They were punished for their old social network posts with the symbols of the Navalny headquarters or the FBK, including the Smart Voting logo, which the courts, for unclear reasons, also include among the symbols of Navalny’s banned structures. Several cases were based on campaign products with the Smart Voting symbols, which, according to the candidates, unknown persons were distributing on their behalf. At least 17 people were punished in this manner; courts placed at least three of them – Sergei Tsukasov, Nikolai Kasyan and Nikita Arkin – under arrest for up to 15 days. Vyacheslav Borodulin, Olga Sidelnikova, Yulia Scherbakova, Elena Selkova, Dmitry Oleshkevich, Ilya Azar, Elena Slavinskaya, Maria Volokh, Anna Shatunovskaya-Byurno, Tatyana Kasimova and Mikhail Pletnyov were sentenced to fines. We have no information on the punishment imposed on Levon Smirnov, Olga Prudlik and Dmitry Razenkov.

Kirill Suvorov, an advisor to the Head of the Krasnoselsky Municipal District, was placed under arrest for 15 days. The case was based on his Facebook post, which contained a photograph of a “Down with the CPSU” (KPSS) banner, on which the last two letters were replaced with symbols of the Nazi SS units, along with a propaganda leaflet by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (recognized in Russia as an extremist organization). We believe that the post used the forbidden symbols not to promote Nazism but as a means of political criticism. Previously, Suvorov had spent 15 days under arrest under Article 13.48 CAO for the same post – we considered that case inappropriate as well. The activist had also previously been sentenced to 15 days of arrest under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO and Article 20.3.1 CAO (inciting hatred or enmity), as well as fined in the amount of 40 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for his statements against the “special military operation.”

In Omsk, Vitaly Shantsev, a candidate for city council from the Communist Party, was sentenced to a fine of a thousand rubles in early August. Two 2015 posts were found on his social media page, including a meme with images of Hitler and Operation Barbarossa and the caption “It's cool when a guy makes the first move.” We have no reason to believe that Shantsev adheres to Nazi ideology and promotes it, and the image posted on his page should be recognized as a joke, which hardly deserves sanctions, even if it was in poor taste.

Other August cases under Article 20.3 CAO show no direct connection with the elections. In Yekaterinburg, acting deputy of the City Duma Alexei Kholodarev and journalist Elena Shukaeva received 14 days of arrest. In 2017, both of them published on VKontakte the video “He Is Not Dimon to You” produced by the FBK. The introduction to the video includes the caption “Anti-Corruption Foundation” (FBK), followed by a large red dot (the FBK logo).

We learned in August that, back in June, Kirill Kirillov was fined 2,000 rubles in Rostov-on-Don because a publication with the Smart Voting logo was found on his page.

Vitaliy Gotra faced administrative charges in Volgograd based on over 20 police reports compiled against him under Article 20.3 CAO for posting leaflets, which criticized the “special military operation” and contained swastika symbol, around the city. Various judges sentenced him to administrative arrests ranging from eight to fifteen days based on these police reports. Over twenty reports under Article 20.3.3 CAO were filed against Gotra as well.

In late July, historian Yevgeny Moslov was fined two thousand rubles in Saransk. In 2018, he added to his VKontakte page a video, based on an episode from the animated film Ice Age, which retold the history of World War II in a comic format. In this video, a saber-toothed squirrel with a swastika represents Nazi Germany. Another two-second video found on Moslov's page contained a fragment of Hitler's speech with a swastika visible on his sleeve.

Passive Suffrage Restrictions for Involvement in Extremist Organizations

A number of municipal deputy candidates in Moscow were disqualified from the elections as a result of court decisions establishing the fact of their involvement in the activities of banned Navalny's structures. This status leads to the loss of a person’s passive suffrage right for three years from the moment the organization is banned as extremist.

In Moscow, such decisions were made with respect to Sergei Tsukasov, Sergei Prushinsky, Vladimir Zalischak, Pavel Yarilin, Elena Rusakova, and Olga Prudlik. Anzhelika Pyantkovskaya, a candidate for the City Duma from Yabloko, was deprived of registration in Pskov. Some of the candidates had previously faced administrative responsibility for participating in rallies in support of Navalny held without permits, others posted photos from the rallies, and yet others called for participation in protests or support for Smart Voting.

Sanctions for Distribution of Extremist Materials

In August, we became aware of several cases of persecution under Article 20.29 CAO (mass distribution of extremist materials) for storing on VKontakte the video “Let's Remind Crooks and Thieves about their Manifesto-2002.” This video created by Navalny supporters was banned back in 2013. It lists a number of United Russia's unfulfilled campaign promises from the party's draft manifesto of 2002 and calls for voting for any party other than United Russia. We view the ban against this video as unfounded and the numerous sanctions for its distribution as unlawful.

Back in June, Fyodor Khamensky was fined 1,000 rubles in Ukhta (the Komi Republic) for distributing the same video. At least one other Ukhta resident faced an identical fine in August. In Buynaksk (Republic of Dagestan), Rasul Lukmanov, whose social network page has been displaying the video “Let's Remind Crooks and Thieves about their Manifesto-2002” since 2015, was sentenced to a similar punishment.

Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers

Muslims

Two sentences against followers of Tablighi Jamaat were reported to us in August. This Islamic movement is recognized in Russia as an extremist organization, although it has never been implicated in any calls for violence. We consider persecutions against its supporters unjustified.

Back in April, a verdict against an inmate of a local penal colony was issued in Rubtsovsk of Altai Krai under Article 282.2 Parts 1.1 and 2 CC (involvement of others in the activities of an extremist organization and participation in it). In August, the regional court changed his sentence. Taking the previous verdict into account, the court sentenced the defendant to a sentence of five years and 20 days in prison to be served in a maximum-security penal colony. The inmate in question is probably Ramiz Faskhiev, one of the founders of the Miras Cathedral Mosque in the city of Dyurtyuli in Bashkortostan. In 2017, he received a real term of imprisonment under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC (organizing the activities of an extremist organization).

Another verdict was reported from the Saratov Region, where a local resident received two years in prison under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC. Moreover, unless the press release of the Investigative Committee contains an error, he was found guilty of having participated in the activities of Tablighi Jamaat for only two days in 2019.

One sentence was issued against supporters of the radical Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir recognized in Russia as a terrorist organization. The Central District Military Court sentenced Marat Saibatalov and Alim Timkanov to 17 and 18 years of imprisonment respectively under Article 205.5 Part 1 CC (organizing the activities of a terrorist organization). Damir Abdrafikov, Ruslan Bariev, Rafis Idrisov, Farrukh Makhkamov, Shakhboz Makhmudov, Turatbek Osmonkulov, Aidar Tashbulatov and Ruslan Fomin received sentences ranging from 11 to 14 years behind bars under Part 2 of the same article (participating in the activities of a terrorist organization). It should be noted that Saibatalov was convicted back in 2005 under Article 205.1 CC (involvement of others in the commission of terrorist crimes or otherwise being an accessory to such crimes) and Article 282.2 Part 2 CC. In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on his complaint, agreeing with the arguments that the Russian courts had violated Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time when it was committed.”

A new case under Article 205.5 Parts 1 and 2 CC was initiated in Crimea. Enver Krosh, Vilen Temeryanov, Murat Mustafaev, Edem Bekirov and Rinat Aliev were detained in Dzhankoy and Dzhankoysky District and sent to a pre-trial detention center. The court imposed a restraining measure in the form of house arrest on Seityag Abbozov. The investigators view Krosh as the head of the Hizb ut-Tahrir cell, and the others as its participants.

We believe that the persecution against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers under anti-terrorism legislation solely based on their party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.) is inappropriate, since the party was never implicated in terrorist attacks.

A positive law enforcement example is worth pointing out as well. In Volgograd, the court refused to uphold the prosecutorial claim and recognize the rap track “About Islam” erroneously attributed to the Russian rap collective Kasta as extremist material. The court studied the case file, listened to the track, requested a comprehensive psychological and linguistic examination, and concluded that the song contained no signs of extremism. Indeed, “About Islam” contains no aggressive appeals – the performers only declare that Islam is the only true religion and say the Shahada in Arabic and Russian.


Jehovah Witnesses

Persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses continued in August on the charges of being involved in the activities of local religious organizations banned as extremist. We believe that the decisions to ban these organizations had no legal basis and view them as a manifestation of religious discrimination. It is worth reminding that the ECHR issued a ruling on the complaint submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses, which acknowledged that the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses’ materials and organizations and the persecution against believers violated the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court demanded the dismissal of criminal cases under Article 282.2 CC against Jehovah's Witnesses and the release of imprisoned believers.

Three verdicts against Jehovah's Witnesses were issued in August. In Zelenogorsk of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, Alexander Kabanov received a suspended sentence of two and a half years in prison. He was charged under Article 322.2 CC (fictitious registration at the place of residence or stay) and Article 282.2 Part 2 CC.

In Moscow, Alexander Serebryakov and Yuri Temirbulatov received a suspended sentence of six (six and a half, according to other sources) years under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC.

In Saransk, Vladimir Atryakhin received six years of real imprisonment on a similar charge. Georgy Nikulin and Natalya Nikulina were sentenced to four years and two months in a penal colony under Article 282.2 Parts 1.1 and 2 CC, and Denis Antonov, Alexander Korolyov and Alexander Shevchuk were sentenced to two years of imprisonment under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC.

One sentence was modified. In Stavropol Krai, Konstantin Samsonov had his long real term of imprisonment under Article 282.2 Part 1 Article 282.3 Part 1 CC replaced with a fine of 400 thousand rubles. The court ordered Alexander Akopov and Shamil Sultanov, charged in the same case, to pay 250,000 rubles each (previously they were sentenced to fines of 500,000 rubles each, but exempted from paying them).

The Ninth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction sent for a new appeal the case of Natalia Krieger from the Jewish Autonomous Region sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC.

We are aware of three new cases brought against Jehovah's Witnesses. In Unecha (the Bryansk Region), Elena Yashina became a suspect under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC. In Novocherkassk (the Rostov Region), Garegin Khachaturyan, Gevorg Yeritsyan and Lyubov Galitsyna were sent to pre-trial detention. The latter is known to have been charged under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC. Viktor Kudinov and Sergei Zhigalov were detained as suspects under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC in Sevastopol and Yevpatoria.

Scientologists

A court in St. Petersburg fined Knigoboom booksellers half a million rubles after Scientologists' literature included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials was found on the organization’s premises. We believe that the decision to ban the Church of Scientology materials had no legal grounds. Scientologists have been accused of asserting the superiority of their own teachings, but this position is typical for adherents of almost any religious creed and, in our opinion, should not be interpreted as inciting religious hatred. In their decision to ban the works of the Church of Scientology founder, Ron Hubbard, the Russian courts also pointed out that the Scientologists pursued the goal of forming a certain separate “right” social group, as opposed to all the other “wrong” ones, followed by the gradual expansion of “their kind” to take over the entire world. Even if we accept that the Scientologists advocate such an idea, it should not be interpreted as extremist, since they do not suggest the use of force for bringing people into their ranks. We add that the ECHR indicated in December 2021 that the Russian authorities’ decision to ban Hubbard's books violated the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Bans against Organizations

In August, the “Citizens of the USSR” community, banned in June by the Samara Regional Court, was added to the list of organizations recognized as extremist. This group of “citizens of the USSR” is known by many names, including the “Council of Soviet Socialist Districts” and the “Union of Soviet Radiant Clans,” and was previously known as the “Novokuybyshevsk All-Soviet Central Electoral Commission.” We are unable to state categorically whether the ban is legitimate. On the one hand, some of the organization’s activities can be characterized as illegal and extremist, namely distributing anti-Semitic materials. On the other hand, once its leaders had received the corresponding prosecutorial warnings, the overwhelming majority of court cases against its members related to disseminating the appeal issued by one particular member, “Soviet deputy” Yuri Slepnyov, in which he calls for non-interference with the “elections” held by the organization. The only law enforcement concerns regarding this appeal were the threats contained therein to prosecute all those who dare to oppose the electoral process as traitors to the Motherland under Article 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code (which provided for punishments up to the death penalty). In and of itself, this threat is hard to take seriously, especially since the Novokuybyshevsk All-Soviet Central Electoral Commission was never known to be involved in violent actions. The wide distribution of such threats may have increased the extent of their public danger, but the question of whether this constitutes a sufficient reason to ban the organization remains open. Additional information about the “citizens of the USSR” in Novokuybyshevsk can be found here and in Mikhail Akhmetiev’s book Citizens without the USSR. Communities of “Soviet citizens” in modern Russia [Grazhdane bez SSSR. Soobshchestva "sovetskikh grazhdan" v sovremennoy Rossii].