The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in April 2024.

Sanctions for Anti-Government Statements and Activities

Justifying Terrorism

On April 22, the 2nd Western District Military Court sentenced Meta Corporation press secretary Andy Stone in absentia under Article 205.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (CC) for justification of terrorism to six years in a minimum-security penal colony with a four-year ban on administering Internet resources. Stone's term is to be calculated from the moment of his detention in Russia or his extradition. The case was opened in the spring of 2022. The investigation alleged that on March 11, 2022, Stone made a post on Twitter “justifying aggressive, hostile and violent actions against military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation participating in the special military operation,” as well as containing “public calls to commit acts of terrorism aimed at causing death to military personnel.” Later, the prosecutor asked to exclude calls for terrorism from the charges. Stone's tweet contained Meta's official statement on content moderation rules. In it, the corporation stated that, in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Ukraine, it would temporarily consider statements wishing death to Russian “invaders” acceptable on its sites, while continuing to prohibit calls for violence against Russia’s civilian population. We believe that this statement did not call for or justify terrorism but only clarified Meta's policy on statements posted by its users.

In April, a criminal case under Article 205.2 Part 2 CC was initiated in Moscow against feminist activist Zalina Marshenkulova, who resides abroad. On April 10, she was charged in absentia in connection with a series of posts published on her “Women’s Power” Telegram channel. They were posted on April 3, 2023, after the terrorist attack, which caused the death of military correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin). Marshenkulova stated that she did not consider it necessary to sympathize with Tatarsky’s death, as he supported the killing of other people during the hostilities in Ukraine. In her opinion, the terrorist attack during Tatarsky’s meeting with his readers differs from terrorist attacks in which random people die, due to the nature of the military correspondent’s activities. At the same time, Marshenkulova emphasized that she does not call for anyone’s murder. Let us remind you that the note to Article 205.2 CC defines public justification of terrorism as “a public statement recognizing the ideology and practice of terrorism as correct, in need of support and imitation.” We believe that Marshenkulova expressed her negative attitude towards Tatarsky’s activities but spoke only of the possibility of feeling sympathy for him. She did not disseminate statements about the correctness or permissibility of terrorist methods.

Inciting Hatred towards the Authorities and Their Supporters

In April, three people were arbitrarily fined under Article 20.3.1 (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity) of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) for critical statements not involving calls for violence, targeting representatives of government bodies, law enforcement agencies, and military personnel.

On April 24, the Novoilyinsky District Court of Novokuznetsk completed its consideration of the criminal case against activist Igor (Ingvar) Gorlanov. Igor Gorlanov is an activist well-known in Novokuznetsk, a graduate of an orphanage who, through a series of solitary pickets, obtained from the local authorities the housing he was legally entitled to. He also protested against the use of punitive psychiatry in orphanages. The court ruled to release Gorlanov from criminal liability and enroll him in compulsory medical treatment. He was charged under Article 319 (insulting a government official) and Article 282 Part 1 CC (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity, committed repeatedly within a year from the date of punishment imposed under a similar administrative article). The case was based on posts on Gorlanov’s Telegram channel. According to investigators, he criticized judges and called police officers “rats.” Previously, he had faced charges under Article 20.3.1 CAO twice, also for posts with negative characterizations of police officers. According to the activist, the charge under Article 319 CC related to a conflict with a police officer that arose in a shopping center. We consider the charges against Gorlanov under Article 282 CC inappropriate.

On April 19, it was reported that a criminal case had been opened against trash-streamer Pavel Prokudin from Volgograd under Article 282 Part 1 CC. He was detained in Penza, transported to Volgograd, and placed in pre-trial detention. Criminal prosecution became possible since Prokudin was fined under Article 20.3.1 CAO less than a year ago, in July 2023, for a stream in which he expressed his negative attitude towards people from the Caucasus region. The criminal case was based on a stream, in which he criticized the Russian military personnel participating in the special military operation. In the video, the streamer called them “cannon fodder” and wondered whether their activities were beneficial and whether their lives made any “sense”. He contrasted himself with the military personnel, pointing out that his creative activity was of great benefit. The stream published by the Volgograd resident did not contain any calls for aggressive actions or discrimination against the military.

In April, we also learned of five new cases of prosecution under Article 20.1 Part 3 CAO for “disrespect for state and society.” Four people faced fines ranging from 15 to 70 thousand rubles for posts with harsh criticism of the president. In one case, the outcome is unknown.

Vandalism Motivated by Hatred

On April 26, Dmitry Pekhterev was released from an open prison. As it turned out, back on February 21, the Ramenskоyе City Court in the Moscow Region found him guilty under Article 214 Part 2 CC (vandalism motivated by political or ideological hatred) and Article 167 Part 2 CC (willful destruction or damage to property motivated by hooliganism, using a generally dangerous method, or with grave consequences). Pekhterev was sentenced to a year and eight months in an open prison, but the time spent in a pre-trial detention center during the investigation covered most of the sentence. Reportedly, charges against Pekhterev were based on the allegation that he was removing stickers with the letter Z from cars. We could assume that, if any cars sustained damage in the process, the charge under Article 167 CC against him relates specifically to this fact. However, the basis for the charges under Article 214 CC remains unclear.

On April 25, at a visiting session, the 1st Eastern District Military Court issued a verdict against anarchists Alexander Snezhkov, Lyubov Lizunova, and Vladislav Vishnevsky from Chita. The court found Snezhkov guilty under Article 214 Part 2, Article 205.2 Part 2, and Article 280 Part 1 CC, sentencing him to six years in a minimum-security penal colony. The court sentenced Vladislav Vishnevsky to one and a half years of compulsory labor under Article 214 Part 2 and Article 280 Part 1 CC. Lizunova was found guilty under the same charges as Snezhkova but was exempted from liability under Article 214; the court released her due to the expiry of the limitation period (it is shorter for minors). She was sentenced to three and a half years in a correctional colony. The vandalism case was based on the graffiti “Death to the regime” painted on a garage on October 31, 2022. The basis for the charge under Article 280 Part 1 CC was not specified; it was possibly related to the same graffiti. We doubt the validity of prosecuting anarchists under Article 214 Part 2 CC. Let us note that “Death to the regime” can be characterized as an example of an abstract anti-government slogan that does not contain specific calls for violence. And if the charge under Article 280 CC was brought against the anarchists specifically for the graffiti, we doubt its appropriateness as well. The charges under Article 205.2, as reported in the media, were associated with publications in channels administered by Snezhkov and Lizunova. The investigation found that a number of posts on these channels endorsed the arson of military enlistment offices and rail sabotage attributed to the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists (BOAC).

Discrediting the Use of the Armed Forces or Activities of Government Agencies

According to the data of the State Automated System “Pravosudie” as of the first decade of May, at least 234 people were punished in April under Article 20.3.3 CAO for discrediting the use of armed forces and actions of government agencies.

“Fakes about the Army” Motivated by Hatred

We consider sanctions under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC (dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the Russian army motivated by political hatred) inappropriate unless the imputed statements contain calls for violence.

Organized Anti-Government Activities

On April 9, the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan re-examined the prosecutorial appeal against the verdict of former head of Navalny’s Ufa headquarters Lilia Chanysheva, and activist Rustem Mulyukov. The court upheld and increased the punishment imposed on Chanysheva from seven and a half to nine and a half years of imprisonment, with a fine of 400 thousand rubles under Article 282.1 Part 3 CC (creation of an extremist community using official position). The punishment imposed on Mulyukov ‒ two and a half years in a penal colony under Article 282.1 Part 2 (participation in an extremist community) ‒ was left unchanged.

On April 4, the Dolgoprudny City Court of the Moscow Region sentenced programmer Alexei Malyarevsky to seven years of imprisonment with a three-year ban on holding mass events and posting materials on the Internet and a year of restriction of freedom under Article 282.1 Part 2 and Article 282.3 Part 1 CC (financing extremist activities). Malyarevsky was charged with distributing leaflets with “extremist content,” specifically leaflets about the judge who sentenced Alexei Navalny in August 2023, some of which were affixed to the walls of the building where the judge lived. The charge also mentioned a picket on Manezhnaya Square held by Malyarevsky on September 1 of the same year with a poster calling for the release of Navalny and political prisoners in general. He was also charged with using the online financial platform Revolut to send $150 to the account of the banned Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK). The Malyarevsky case was reported after his arrest on October 20, 2023. At the time, the activist was charged under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC (participating in the activities of an extremist organization), however, the case was brought to court with a different qualification.

On April 5, the Leninsky District Court of Tyumen sentenced activist Anton Kovrik from Omsk to a fine of 300 thousand rubles under Article 282.3 Part 1 CC finding him guilty of transferring funds to FBK. At the same time, the court released Kovrik from punishment taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention since September 2023.

On April 17, the Zavodskoy District Court of Oryol sentenced English language teacher Ilya Startsev to a fine of 400 thousand rubles under Article 282.3 Part 1 CC for transferring seven thousand rubles to FBK. After the verdict was announced, Startsev, who had been in custody since September 2023, was released in the courtroom.

It was reported on April 1 that a criminal case under Article 282.3 Part 1 CC was opened against Vitaly Samoilik, a businessman from Tyumen and the owner of the local Spasskaya hotel, for his money transfer to FBK. The Tsentralny District Court of Tyumen sent him to a pre-trial detention center after his arrest, but on March 15, the regional court changed the preventive measure to house arrest.

Bans against Organizations

It was reported on April 26 that the Russian Ministry of Justice demanded that the “Anti-Russian Separatist Movement” and its structural divisions be recognized as extremist organizations. The Supreme Court of Russia registered the corresponding claim on April 17; the hearing is scheduled for June 7. According to the Ministry of Justice, the Anti-Russian Separatist Movement is an international movement “to destroy the multinational unity and territorial integrity of Russia.” Specific structural units of the movement were not named. The claim of the Ministry of Justice has not been published, but we can assume that this is yet another “flexible” ban, i.e. a ban against a non-existent organization that allows for prosecuting a wide range of various activists and ordinary citizens in different regions of Russia. Such decisions include recognizing the AUE subculture and “international LGBT movement” as extremist organizations, as well as banning the “Columbine movement” as a terrorist organization. Obviously, there is no single organization called the “Anti-Russian Separatist Movement” and linked by a common structure. The Ministry of Justice probably has in mind a collection of various organizations and activist initiatives advocating for the secession of different regions from Russia, as well as, quite possibly, regionalist initiatives.

We believe that such a ban will affect not only separatists who advocate the partition of certain regions from Russia by military means but also those who conduct peaceful discussions about the status of a particular territory or even about expanding its rights as part of Russia, including cultural rights. The charges against them can be administrative or criminal. In addition to Article 20.3.2 CAO and Articles 280.1 and 280.2 CC that stipulate responsibility specifically for incitement to actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of Russia, the recognition of the “Anti-Russian Separatist Movement” as an extremist organization allows prosecution under Article 20.3 CAO, as well as Articles 282.2, 282.3 and 282.4 CC.

In our opinion, restrictions are permissible only for calls for violent separatism; peaceful discussions about the status of a particular territory should not be limited.

Displaying Banned Symbols

Protecting Historical Memory and “Traditional Values”

“Rehabilitating Nazism”

On April 1, the Samara Regional Court sentenced Alexander Vragov to one year and nine months and Kamil Abdykanov to a year and five months of imprisonment in an open prison, finding them guilty under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (insult to the memory of defenders of the Fatherland, committed by a group of persons). According to the investigation’s version, upheld by the court, Vragov and Abdykanov, residents of the village of Volzhsky in Krasnoyarsky District, on September 2, while intoxicated, approached the T-80 tank installed as a monument and “publicly expressed obvious disrespect and insult to the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland.” According to local Telegram channels they climbed onto the tank and began to dance, shouting pro-Ukrainian slogans, and then exposed their buttocks and defecated on the monument. From our point of view, such disorderly conduct deserves condemnation, but criminal prosecution can be justified only for crimes that pose a significant danger to society. We believe that the men could have been charged with disorderly conduct (Article 20.1 CAO) or vandalism (Article 214 CC) if they had seriously damaged the tank. However, the criminalization of acts defined so broadly as insulting the memory of unspecified defenders of the Fatherland, in our opinion, does not meet international legal human rights standards.

It is also worth noting that on April 9, the Third Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction upheld the prosecutorial appeal against the sentence of Alexander Tyurenko, a resident of Crimea, and replaced his two-year suspended sentence with the same term in an open prison. Tyurenko was sentenced on January 29 by the Supreme Court of Crimea, which found him guilty under Article 214 Part 2 CC and Article 354.1 Part 4 CC. Tyurenko, while intoxicated, urinated on a structure with the Z and V symbols, filmed his actions and posted the recording online. The investigation believed that he had committed this act “motivated by social enmity towards military personnel participating in the special military operation on the territory of Ukraine.” We view charges against the defendant under Articles 214 Part 2 CC and 354.1 CC as inappropriate and the qualification of his actions under Articles 214 and 354.1 CC as excessive. Given that his actions did not cause substantial material damage, in our opinion, he could have been charged with disorderly conduct under Article 20.1 CAO. Criminal prosecution and, to an even greater extent, a two-year prison sentence seem overly harsh measures.

In April, one case of desecration of military symbols was opened based on online activity. It was reported on April 25. A resident of Mednogorsk (Karachaevo-Cherkessia) Dmitry Chemerigin faced charges under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (desecration of symbols of Russia’s military glory and the memory of defenders of the Fatherland, committed on the Internet) and Article 354.1 Part 2 CC (denial of the facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal, committed on the Internet). According to investigators, in December 2023, Chemerigin posted materials “containing approval of the crimes of Nazi criminals and their accomplices” on his Odnoklassniki page. In addition, he posted materials “expressing clear disrespect for the symbols of Russia’s military glory and the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland” twice. The materials in question are two images: the first was a collage with the St. George ribbon superimposed on the image of an eagle combined with the Nazi swastika and the caption “The St. George ribbon is a symbol of the Russian fascist army of General Vlasov.” The second image contained the same collage but with the caption “During the Second World War, St. George ribbons were awarded only to Vlasovites, who fought in the RUSSIAN corps on the NAZI side.” Obviously, the investigation interpreted these images as an expression of disrespect for the symbol of Russia’s military glory. It was never specified what exactly investigators considered an endorsement of Nazi crimes but judging by the content of Chemerigin’s social media accounts, the charge could be related to the dissemination of xenophobic propaganda.

We would like to note one more case on the rehabilitation of Nazism. On April 23, 57-year-old Igor Maximov, a minister of the local Greek Catholic Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin, was detained and placed under house arrest the next day. He was charged under Article 354.1 Part 1 CC and Article 148 Part 2 CC (insulting the religious feelings of believers, committed in places intended for worship). According to investigators, “being a minister of a local religious organization,” Maximov, “for some time placed images of Nazi collaborators stylized as icons of the Holy Mother of God in the refectory,” “available for viewing by an indefinite audience.” The “icons” with images of Bandera, Shukhevych, and Josyf Slipyj (a leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who collaborated with the German occupation authorities during World War II) were removed from the temple last year after temple visitors contacted the police. Maximov said that he had acted “at the order of Svyatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.” Law enforcement officials conducted a preventive conversation with him at the time, and the case was opened, apparently, only in April 2024. In addition, the regional department of the Ministry of Justice sent an administrative claim to the regional court to liquidate the parish as a religious organization due to certain violations. We doubt the validity of the charge brought against Maximov under Article 354.1 Part 1 CC. It is worth reminding that Part 1 of the article punishes “denial of the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, or approval of the crimes established by this verdict.” But neither Bandera, nor Shukhevych, nor Slipyj were convicted at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In addition, hanging stylized “icons” with figures of the Ukrainian nationalist movement can be perceived as approval or recognition of the importance of their role in the history of Ukraine, but this action obviously neither denies nor justifies the crimes established by the tribunal. At the same time, under current legislation, displaying portraits of Bandera and Shukhevych as OUN leaders falls under Article 20.29 CAO on the distribution of extremist materials. We also consider the charges brought against Maximov under Article 148 Part 2 CC inappropriate, since we oppose sanctions for “insulting the feelings of believers.” Furthermore, it is unclear exactly what violations committed by the parish the Ministry of Justice found irreparable and so severe as to seek its liquidation.

“Insulting the Feelings of Believers”

In April, it became known that on March 4, the Leninsky District Court of Krasnodar sentenced Sofya Burger to 440 hours of community service under Article 148 Part 2 CC. The criminal charges were based on a video made in March 2023. Standing in front of a grave at the All Saints Cemetery, Burger performed a dance while holding a cigarette in her mouth and making obscene gestures with both hands. She later posted the video on social media. The investigation found that the resident of Krasnodar, “out of disrespect toward the Orthodox faith,” acted intending to offend the religious feelings of believers. At the trial, she admitted her guilt and explained that her actions were intended to show her negative attitude towards Nazism. According to the defendant, the dance and the musical track on the video were a reference to the fact that Nazism must be buried. Apart from our criticism of the norm itself, it remains unclear on what basis Burger’s actions were specifically classified under Article 148 Part 2 CC. Unlike a temple, a cemetery should not be considered a place specifically intended for holding religious services. According to the federal law “On Burial and Funeral Affairs,” “on public cemeteries, burial can be performed taking religious, military or other customs and traditions into account.”

On April 11, it was reported that a Vladikavkaz resident was arrested, and a criminal case was opened against her under Article 148 Part 1 CC (insulting the religious feelings of believers). She was released under travel restrictions. She is suspected of posting two photographs with offensive statements “addressed to persons professing a particular religion,” and containing “signs of deliberate public desecration of religious or liturgical literature, or objects of religious veneration.”

In our opinion, if certain statements incite hatred towards followers of any religion, such actions can be qualified under Article 20.3.1 CAO, otherwise, there is no need for prosecution. Article 5.26 Part 2 CAO applies to cases of public desecration of objects of religious veneration. However, we believe that posting images that don’t imply any actions with actual religious paraphernalia should not, in and of itself, be interpreted as their desecration; We also note that the legislation fails to define the concept of “desecration” in any way.

Two new criminal cases were reported in April.

On April 15, it became known that a 53-year-old resident of Alushta had been detained under Article 148 Part 1 CC. He is suspected of posting on social networks “photos of Orthodox shrines and accompanying unacceptable captions that offend the religious feelings of believers.”

On April 26, reports emerged about a criminal case being opened in Ulyanovsk under Article 148 Part 1 CC against street artist Yegor Zakharov, known by the pseudonym Holtov. According to investigators, from 2014 to 2021, he posted “images and texts containing mockery of images revered in Christianity” from several social media accounts. This might refer to works created by Holtov. Among his creations is an image of a woman resembling the Virgin Mary with a large bottle of beer in her hands; an image of a married couple leading an asocial lifestyle with a baby resembling a corpse, halos above their heads, and the caption “We will go to heaven, and they will simply drop dead”; and the inscription “Poh with us” (a play on the slogan “God with us”).

Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers

Jehovah's Witnesses

In April, Jehovah's Witnesses continued to face prosecution on charges of involvement in local religious organizations that were deemed extremist and banned.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

On April 17, the Southern District Military Court sentenced Khaidarali Ashurov, a citizen of Tajikistan, to seven years of imprisonment with the first three years to be served in prison and the rest in a maximum-security penal colony. He was found guilty of preparing to participate in a terrorist organization (Article 205.5 Part 2 CC with Article 30 Part 1 CC), public calls for extremism (Article 280 Part 1 CC), and justification of terrorism (Article 205.2 Part 1 CC). Ashurov was arrested in June 2022. According to the investigation’s version, upheld by the court, he had been preparing to join Hizb ut-Tahrir since the spring of 2020. For this purpose, Ashurov studied the Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology using literature and video materials acquired on the Internet. He also asked a former party member to help him join and was refused, but he did not give up his aspirations even then. In addition, Ashurov was charged with holding “public meetings” in Rostov-on-Don, during which he spoke approvingly about the activities of terrorist organizations and the need to commit violent actions against a certain group of people based on their attitude toward religion. We believe that the ban on the Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir is not unfounded, but charges under Article 205.5 CC for involvement in it (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.) in the absence of convincing charges of other terrorist crimes lead to clearly disproportionate punishment. As for the charges under Articles 280 and 205.2 CC, we cannot evaluate them, although we must note that in such cases the court should carefully study the degree of the statements’ public danger. For more information on the problem of evaluating such charges and the proportionality of the penalties imposed, see here.