The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in October 2013.

Lawmaking

In October, a bill providing a set of new counter-terrorism measures overcame all three readings in the Duma and was approved by the Federation Council. The bill proposes, inter alia, the criminalization of organizing and joining a terrorist conspiracy or continuing the activities of an organization banned for terrorism. This is analogous with anti-extremist articles 282.1 and 282.2 of the Criminal Code, respectively, but this bill provides a much more severe punishment. This will affect many of the current and future cases on the charges of membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic party - although it could likely be banned as an extremist party, it is clearly inappropriate to describe it as a terrorist group. Note that in the second reading the legislators amended an increased period of time for the continuation of activities by the terrorist organization.

In early October, the constitutional court recognized a contradicting Constitutional amendment, passed in the spring of 2013, law no. 67-FZ: “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right of participation in the citizens’ referendum of the Russian Federation", according to which the ban on the passive voting rights for convicted criminals from a number of categories, including for crimes of an extremist orientation, was for life. At the end of the month the deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party submitted a draft law to the Duma repealing the ban, but also included a statement which details that candidates with criminal records should be indicated in the subscription lists, ballot papers, and information boards in the premises for voting, regardless of actual conviction. A few days earlier the Duma had received another bill which limited passive voting rights to persons convicted of serious crimes for 10 years from the date of withdrawal or cancellation of conviction, and 15 years for grave crimes. The draft was developed by a group of legislators headed by the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation, Vladimir Pligin. Pligin does not discuss the limitations of extremist criminals in the bill; however, another bill that moves extremist crimes into the category of grave crimes is already under consideration by the State Duma. In this case, given the state of the Russian judicial system allowing a large number of abuses in the application of anti-extremism legislation, the authorities will be able to influence the election process. 

Criminal Prosecution

In the beginning of the month it became known that the Birsk district court of the Republic of Bashkortostan convicted Radik Nurdinov according to section 1 article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to national hatred) and sentenced him to a penalty of more than 80 thousand rubles for the publication of prohibited articles, "Tatar national idea and ideology" by Vil Mirzayanov and for appeals to "grant privileges to certain groups of people, united by nationality". Mirzayanov’s article does follow the spirit of separatism and Tatar nationalism. However, we do not believe that the publication is a serious offence deserving of prosecution.

In early October, the Morgaushky district court of the Chuvash Republic convicted journalist Ille Ivanov according to section 1 article 282 of the Criminal Code for publishing the article "Show me your language, and I will tell who you are" in the newspaper "Bribe" (Vzyatka) on May 4, 2011, and sentenced him to 300 hours of community service. However, Ivanov was exempt from punishment due to an expired statute of limitation. Note that article "Show me your language, and I will tell who you are" was recognized as extremist material, which after its publication Ille Ivanov was charged, with the assumption that the chief editor of the newspaper repeatedly stated that the author of the article in fact was himself. In our opinion, the article is recognized as extremist material illegally, and was especially wrongfully prosecuted for its publication. The text was written from the position of Chuvash nationalism and contained incorrect statements about Russians, which could be regarded as hate speech, especially considering the contrast of the "law-abiding Chuvash" who have been oppressed for centuries. However, there were no illegal appeals made in the material, and there was no real danger presented either. At the end of the month Ivanov challenged the decision of the court.

In October the Leninsky district court of Vladivostok convicted activist Igor Popov of "Other Russia", according to section 1 article 282 of the Criminal Code (inciting social hatred against representatives of authorities and law enforcement agencies) and section 2 article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organizing activity of an extremist organization) and fined him 150 thousand rubles. Popov was accused of distributing leaflets entitled, "We need another Russia!" and for being a member of the banned National Bolshevik Party. Popov was exempt from punishment due to an expired statute of limitation. However, the activist announced his intention to appeal the decision of the court. For him, to appeal the sentence is of fundamental importance not only because he completely denies the guilt, but also because of the possibility of dismissal from the puppet theatre (those convicted of extremism are denied the right to work with children). Note, we are talking about the repeated examination of Popov’s case; earlier, the same court found Popov and Alexander Kurov guilty, but the court of cassation reversed the verdict. Later, the case against Kurov was dismissed due to an expired statute of limitation, and Popov did not agree with the termination of the case on grounds of non-rehabilitation. We also recall that, from our point of view, representatives of authorities and law enforcement bodies should not be regarded as a social group in need of special protection in the form of anti-extremism legislation. We doubt that harassment of "Other Russia" activists for participating in the activities of the NBP for belonging to another organization is justified, just as we doubt that is legal to ban the NBP for extremism.

In mid-October in the city of Klin, part of the Moscow region, the court declared Elena Polyakova, a local journalist for the newspaper "Sickle and Hammer" (Serp i molot), guilty by section 2 article 119 of the Criminal Code, for murder threats directed towards the head of the Education Management Department of the municipal district, Alena Sokolskaya, "on motives of hatred or enmity towards social groups related to the authorities of Klin municipal district of the Moscow region" and sentenced her conditionally to one and a half years of imprisonment. Polyakova was accused that in the summer of 2011 when she commentated on an article about Sokolskaya’s activities on the website of the public opposition movement "Consent and Truth, the Moscow Region" (Soglasie i pravda. Podmoskovye) in which she said, in particular, that it is already time, by Stalinist or Chinese laws, to put Sokolskaya a bullet in the head. We consider the sentence of the journalist to be improper. The investigation has not presented convincing evidence that the comment was left exactly by Polyakova, because it was sent from an IP address which is common to all employees of the newspaper "Sickle and Hammer". The phrase which incriminated Polyakova certainly cannot be regarded as a real threat of murder, and it is difficult to even find a provocative threat in her comment. In addition, the "social group attributable to the authorities of the Klin municipal district, the Moscow region”, cannot be considered a group to be protected in the form of anti-extremism legislation. Remember, that in order to avoid abuses, we generally favor the exception of the undefined term "social group" from the legislation. Polyakova plans to dispute the verdict up to involving the European Court of Human Rights.

In the middle of October in the Kaluga region, Janna Tsaregradskaya, founder and head of the "Rozhana” Center for Perinatal Education and Support of Breastfeeding, was accused. In addition to section 1 article 239 of the Criminal Code (creation of a public organization, which is associated with violence against citizens), Tsaregradskaya is accused according to section 1 article 282 of the Criminal Code, specifically, for excitation of hatred or enmity, or humiliation of human dignity on the grounds of gender (men) and belonging to a social class of spouses. According to investigators, in 2007 the “Rozhana” Center, was merely a guise for a "sect with a rigid hierarchical structure and an enrollment of a wide range of people (at least 14 people) that denied the family as an institution in society, encouraged a negative attitude towards spouses (men), rejected medical assistance, education, work, military and alternative civil service, and encouraged the use of physical and mental violence". We believe that the use of article 282 of the Criminal Code in Tsaregradskaya’s case is inappropriate. "Married men" cannot be considered a vulnerable group that must be protected in the form of anti-extremist legislation. Moreover, the leader of a perinatal center can hardly be considered to be encouraging mothers to be violent towards their spouses. The rejection of the family unit and of medical aid, education, work, military and alternative service is not subject to anti-extremist legislation.

Civil Proceedings

In early October, the Krasnodar regional court upheld the decision of the Uspensky district court to prohibit the Jehovah's Witnesses’ brochure, “Thoroughly testifying about the Kingdom of God" (Germany, 2009). Note that the proceedings for recognizing extremist brochures lasted two years, and this case was examined on several occasions, and each examination denied the presence of extremism in the book, which does not prevent the court from satisfying the prosecutor's claim. Recall, we believe the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and the ban on their texts for extremist reasons illegal and perceive it as religious discrimination.

In mid-October, the Nizhny Novgorod regional court rejected the Prosecutor's appeal for the Dzerzhinsky district court’s refusal to recognize extremist material in the thesis by S. Dmitrievsky, B. Gvareli and O. Chelysheva entitled, "The International Tribunal for Chechnya". We recall that the book provides a detailed analysis of the crimes committed during the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic from the point of view of international criminal law and does not contain any signs of extremism.