Lawmaking

In late March, member of the Federation Council Viktor Ozerov introduced in the State Duma a bill authorizing regional prosecutors to submit their requests for blocking online materials under “Lugovoy’s Law” to Roskomnadzor. Currently, only the Office of the Prosecutor-General has this mandate. Vladimir Makarov, the deputy head of the General Administration for Combating Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had supported Ozerov’s initiative in his earlier speech to the Federation Council and expressed his hope that “Lugovoy’s Law” could be utilized to also block “clearly extremist materials that contain no incitement to extremism.” Given the vague wording of the legislation and numerous known cases of its misuse, we can expect a sharp increase in such misuse, if these plans are implemented. We favor blocking materials with extremist statements via judicial mechanisms.

In mid-March, it became known that Andrey Sabinin, the lawyer of Stavropol blogger Victor Krasnov, who had ventured to make atheistic comments on a social network, filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the provisions of Article 148 of the Criminal Code that relate to insulting the feelings of believers. The complaint points out the lack of legal certainty that stems from the wording of Part 1 of the article and the fact that this wording unduly restricts the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Sabinin’s complaint specifically points out that the legislation never defines the concept of offending the feelings of believers, thus creating an opportunity for prosecution against atheistic statements, since these might be offensive to believers. Sabinin refers to Resolution No. 11 of the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “Concerning Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Regarding Crimes of Extremism,” adopted on June 28, 2011,” which states that the criticism of political or religious organizations alone can’t be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. Human rights activists also note the redundancy of this Criminal Code article. It overlaps in wording and scope with Article 282 (incitement to hatred) and Article 213 (hooliganism), resulting in an ambiguity with respect to qualifying offences. It is no coincidence that this article has been used rather infrequently. Notably, in the same few days, Heiner Bielefeldt, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, presented a report at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on the use of blasphemy laws in different countries and called for their general revocation. According to Bielefeldt, these laws restrict freedom of expression and contribute to manifestations of hatred and intolerance on religious grounds. Religious minorities tend to be the first to suffer from their enforcement.

Criminal Prosecution

On March 22, the Donetsk City Court of the Rostov Region declared Ukrainian pilot Nadezhda Savchenko guilty under charges, which included paragraphs “a,” “f,” “g” and “k” of Article 105 Part 2 (murder of two or more persons committed in a socially dangerous way by a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group, motivated by hatred or enmity towards a particular social group). The indictment defined a social group “the civilian population of Luhansk region (Ukraine), in connection with their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the current government in Ukraine and their desire to create a separate territorial entity - Luhansk People’s Republic” as the target of hatred, which motivated Savchenko. The court has agreed with this qualification of Savchenko’s offences, but we consider them inappropriately qualified. The actions she is accused of occurred under battle conditions. They could have been qualified as a war crime (if any), to which the provisions of the Criminal Code Section VII, relating to the conditions of peace, are not applicable. By constructing an arbitrary social group, as it was done in the indictment, any war crime against civilians can be interpreted as hate crime, which is wrong as a matter of principle. This case demonstrated once again that the vague notion of “social group” has become a source of widespread abuse and should be removed from the anti-extremist Criminal Code articles altogether.

In March, the Zavolzhsky District Court of Tver began its hearings in the criminal case of Andrey Bubeev. The case under the charges of public incitement to extremism (Article 280 Part 2) and public incitement to actions aimed at violation of the Russian Federation's territorial integrity (Article 280.1 Part 2) was opened against Bubeev in September 2015; meanwhile, in August of the same year, he was convicted under Article 282 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (incitement to ethnic hatred) and Article 222 Part 1 (illegal purchase and possession of firearms). All accusations against Bubeev (old and new) are based on third party materials he shared via his VKontakte social network. In particular, he is accused of posting Boris Stomakhin’s article “CRIMEA IS UKRAINE,” which contains a clearly identifiable call for an aggressive war against Russia. In addition, Bubeev is accused of sharing an image, depicting a hand that squeezes the toothpaste out of its tube with the caption “squeeze Russia out of yourself,” and accompanied by the assertion that the only possible form of protest had to involve “active destruction” of Russia “as the Chechens did at one time, for example.” In general, posts on Bubeev’s page are aggressive in their character. We view the charge under Article 280.1 as inappropriate, because we believe that citizens are entitled to openly express their opinion related to Russia’s new territorial acquisitions.

A criminal case under Part 2 Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code (public calls to terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism) was initiated in early March against blogger Alexey Kungurov, a regular author of Algorithm Publishing House, and a member of the January 25 Committee. According to Kungurov, the charges relate to his article “Whom do Putin’s Falcons actually bomb?” The blogger claims that the charges pertain to his statement that Russia does not bomb the Islamic State, but instead, de facto, assists it. The article provides an analysis of the current situation in the Middle East. We found no appeals to terrorism in this text. However, it is possible that we do not have all the information, and the charges against Kungurov are also based on other publications.

A sentence in the case on incitement to ethnic hatred (Article 282 Part 1) and exoneration of Nazism expressed in the desecration of symbols of Russia's military glory (Article 354.1 Part 3 of the Criminal Code) was issued in Minusinsk of the Krasnoyarsk Region in March. The case was heard using a special procedure. Local resident G. Nazimov pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 months of corrective labor with 10% of his earnings withheld by the state. He was accused of posting on his VKontakte page a captioned image, which insulted the St. George ribbon as a symbol of military glory, on May 8, 2015, and of open incitement to xenophobic violence, with a corresponding video published on his page on May 23, 2015. We have no reason to question the verdict against Nazimov under Article 282, but the charge under Article 354.1 seems insufficiently substantiated. According to the investigators, the post, which insulted the St. George ribbon, consisted of an image of a quilted jacket and an image of the St. George ribbon with the caption that “contained profanity and expressions of negative attitude towards the St. George ribbon as a symbol of the Russian military glory (symbol of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War).” However, if the offender’s posts treated the St. George ribbon as a symbol of the confrontation in the South-East of Ukraine, utilized by one side of the conflict, it should have been regarded as such and not as “a symbol of glory and victory in the Great Patriotic War.” Thus, the charge under Article 354.1 can’t be accepted as fully legitimate.

A criminal case under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organizing activities of an extremist organization) for creating a cell of the banned religious organization Nurcular was opened in Dagestan in mid-March against Arthur Kultuev and Ziyavdin Dapaev, who were previously convicted in 2011 under Article 282.2 Part 1 for studying the books by Turkish theologian Said Nursi and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. We would like to remind here that we view the ban against Nurcular as inappropriate. This organization have never even existed in Russia; there are only individual believers, who face prosecution for the study of Nursi's books (which pose no danger).

In late March, the Moscow District Military Court at its visiting session in Saint Petersburg issued a verdict under Part 1 of Article 205.5 (organization of activities of a terrorist organization) against Muslims Sergei Yablokov and Roman Ivanov. Yablokov was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison and restriction of freedom for 1 year, and Ivanov - to 13 years and 4 months' imprisonment in a maximum security colony. According to the investigation and the court, the defendents headed the Petersburg cell of Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir party until 2014; they recruited new members, held meetings and disseminated information about the organization. Two Muslims have been previously convicted in the case of this cell; five more are under investigation. Once again, we would like to reiterate that we view the terrorism charges against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers merely on the basis of their party activities (meetings, reading literature, etc.) as inappropriate.

After a series of raids that took place March 18 to 22 in Kazan, Naberezhnye Chelny and Almetyevsk on suspicion of involvement in the Hizb ut-Tahrir, ten criminal cases against 17 individuals were initiated in Tatarstan under Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code. 13 of them were taken into custody or under house arrest for two months.

In Nizhnevartovsk criminal case under Article 205.5 Part 2 and Article 282 Part 1 was initiated against a local resident, accused of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir and dissemination of the its materials. In addition, according to the investigation, he published videos aimed at “forming a negative, hostile, and antagonistic attitude toward the work of law enforcement bodies, followers of Christianity and the Christian religion in general” on his VKontakte page in 2014. The defendant has been placed in custody. We would like to remind that we do not consider the law enforcement officers a vulnerable group that requires protection in the form of anti-extremist legislation.

Administrative Prosecution

In March, we learned that two individuals and two entities were prosecuted under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for distribution of inappropriately banned materials or storage of such materials with intent to distribute. A court in Dyurtyuli (Bashkortostan) suspended the activities of a religious paraphernalia store for 20 days and fined its director 3 thousand rubles because the store was found to contain two Muslim religious pamphlets, inappropriately recognized as extremist (the verdict was delivered in late January). IK-10 penal colony in Ulyanovsk was fined 100 thousand rubles, after two inappropriately banned pamphlets were found in the mosque, located on its territory. A resident of Volzhsk (Mari El) was fined a thousand rubles for the publication of inappropriately banned “Miracles of the Qur'an” video on her VKontakte page. The Prokhladnensky District Court of Kabardino-Balkaria fined the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation and issued a warning about the impermissibility of extremist activity for distribution of three brochures, two of which have been inappropriately recognized as extremist, and the third have never been banned at all.

According to our sources, two people inappropriately faced responsibility in March under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code for displaying Nazi symbols without any propaganda intent. Nikolay Konovalov, an activist of the interregional Workers Association trade union in Chita, was fined fifteen hundred rubles; his social network page was blocked as well. Konovalov posted on his social network page a cartoon featuring Recep Erdogan and Petro Poroshenko; they were depicted wearing swastikas on their sleeves. He also posted photos of fighters from Ukrainian Azov battalion, as well as images of antique Christmas decorations of the Third Reich. Konovalov intends to appeal the court's decision. Semyon Kochkin from Cheboksary was prosecuted for sharing a post he saw on the official page of young Ekaterinburg singer Elizaveta Gyrdymova, known on VKontakte under the nickname “Monetochka.” The post contained a remix of a song by Gyrdymova and a collage, based on her songs, which included a manga-style image of a girl in a Nazi uniform with a swastika armband. In our opinion, taking the context into account, the publication of this image was not intended as Nazi propaganda.

The director of the Uysk primary school in the Chelyabinsk region faced responsibility under Article 6.17 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (violation of the requirements for dissemination among children of informational products containing information harmful to their health and (or) development) due to inadequate performance of content filters on school computers. We believe that, as a rule, content filtering programs are generally inefficient, and the school personnel should not be held accountable for this problem. Administrators of four coffee shops and one transportation company in Saratov, as well as a confectionery shop owner in Tyumen (she was fined 5000 rubles) faced responsibility under Article 6.17 Part 2 (failure by the person organizing access to information disseminated through information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet) in places accessible to children, to utilize administrative and organizational measures, or technical, software and hardware means for the purpose of protecting children from information harmful for their health and development). The charges were based on the fact that the coffee shops and one bus route in Saratov provided public Wi-Fi without any content filters. We oppose prosecution of administrators of coffee shops, Internet cafes, hotels and similar establishments for lack of content filtering, since they do not cater exclusively to children (who are supervised by the parents), but also to adult users, whose rights should not be limited. The same holds true with respect to providers of public transportations services.

In early March, the Syktyvkar City Court dismissed the appeal of the Internet periodical 7x7 against the fine imposed on it in mid-January by a magistrate court of the Kutuzovsky Court District. The online magazine faced administrative liability under the recently introduced Article 13.15 Part 4 of the Administrative Code (desecration of public symbols of Russia's military glory, committed with the use of mass media and (or) of the Internet) and fined 200 thousand rubles. The charges were based on the publication of an interview with a blogger Ilya Varlamov. Varlamov was asked some questions from the test, composed by Meduza news portal; one of the question had to do with to the local nickname for the Syktyvkar Eternal Flame memorial. The expert council of the regional Roskomnadzor department decided that the fact of mentioning this nickname was liable under Article 13.15 of the Administrative Code; subsequently, the agency went to court. Both hearings were held without representatives of the editorial board. We believe that ironic references to the folk nickname of the memorial, mocking the appearance of a sculptural group, do not constitute a desecration of a symbol of military glory, and the prosecution of 7x7 is not legally appropriate. In our opinion, this media resource have already once been a victim of the misapplication of Article 13.15 of the Administrative Code; it was fined in October 2015 for publishing an illustrative image along with the news of the desecration of the Jewish cultural center.