The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in June 2023.
Lawmaking
On June 13, the president signed the law broadening the scope of Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) that stipulates punishments for production and mass distribution of extremist materials. The changes went into effect on June 23. Now a person can be held liable not only for distributing materials included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials, as was the case before, but also for materials not yet included on the list, if a court decides that their content meets the definition provided in the law “On Countering Extremist Activity” (or other relevant federal laws that may be adopted in the future).
On June 21, the delegates adopted in the first reading a bill submitted to the State Duma by the Chechen parliament in January. The changes relate to liability and court procedures involved in classifying materials as extremist. The proposed legislation advocates for shifting such cases away from district court purview and assigning them to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Federation’s territorial subjects (in 2015, such an initiative failed to garner support from the State Duma). The bill’s authors also believe that the consideration of cases on recognizing materials as extremist should involve copyright holders, authors and/or translators of the works in question; in administrative claims related to religious materials, representatives of centralized religious organizations and experts on the relevant religion should be invited to the court sessions as well. Supposedly, this change will contribute to comprehensive and objective consideration of cases in this category and help to avoid the situations when materials that constitute “national, historical, cultural and religious heritage” are recognized as extremist.
We believe that transferring the review of such claims to more competent courts can improve the quality of decisions on banning materials. However, problems with the composition and use of the Federal List of Extremist Materials will persist, since, in our opinion, the very mechanism for recognizing materials as extremist based on their inclusion on a single list is ineffective.
We support the idea of involving copyright holders, authors of works and (or) translations in these cases, as well as conducting religious studies examinations on some of them. As for inviting representatives of centralized religious organizations to trials, it should be borne in mind that such involvement might be appropriate if the materials in question constitute part of their religious creed, but their opinion is hardly relevant in other cases.
On June 24, Vladimir Putin signed two federal laws which provide the people under criminal prosecutions with a possibility to sign a military service contract. The former allows individuals under investigation in cases involving crimes of small or moderate severity or those with a criminal record under a wide range of the Criminal Code (CC) articles to sign a military service contract during the period of war, mobilization or martial law. The latter exempts persons mobilized or called for wartime service, or who served under military service contract at the time of war from criminal liability. Both laws include the same list of categories of defendants or convicted offenders that are not allowed to serve in the military. We described the status of those charged under anti-terrorist or anti-extremist articles here (in Russian).
On June 1, the Supreme Court of Russia approved the decision to introduce in the State Duma the draft bills on expanding liability for crimes of terrorism. On June 5, the bills were registered in the lower house of parliament. The Supreme Court proposes to introduce amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the federal law “On Territorial Jurisdiction of District (Navy) Military Courts,” which places the cases related to terrorism under the jurisdiction of all district military courts. As the Supreme Court pointed out, since 2015, only the Moscow and North Caucasian district military courts (now known as the Second Western and Southern courts, respectively) considered cases related to terrorism. In the summer of 2016, the Privolzhsky District Military Court (now known as the seat of the Central District Military Court in Samara) joined the two military courts mentioned above, followed by the Far Eastern (now – the First Eastern) in the summer of 2017. However, the number of such cases continues to grow. At this time, the First Eastern District Military Court reviews 78.7 % of the cases, and the Second Western addresses 25.7 % of the cases at its field meetings. The current system results in huge travel expenses.
On June 27, the Supreme Court passed a resolution “On some issues that arise when courts consider administrative cases on protecting voting rights and rights to participate in referendums of the citizens of the Russian Federation.” The ruling clarifies the issues related to recent changes in Russian legislation including the ones covered by SOVA Center’s reports. Among other considerations, the Supreme Court reiterated that, under the new rules, involvement in extremist or terrorist organizations forms the basis for restricting passive suffrage. According to the Supreme Court, the criteria for establishing involvement in such organizations include “expressing support for such activities by statements, including online statements, or other actions (providing funds, property, organizational methodological, advisory or other assistance, or participating in individual events of the organization (association).” Screenshots of social network pages that contain such endorsements, recordings of public speeches or judicial documents establishing responsibility for participation in such activities (including public events organized by a banned association) can serve as proof of involvement.
In addition, the Supreme Court mentioned allowing the use of prohibited symbols, whether Nazi or extremist, in electoral campaigns, provided that their use fosters a negative disposition towards corresponding ideologies. On the other hand, if campaign materials potentially facilitate the misuse of information freedom or include calls for extremism, as delineated in the appropriate law, courts may impose a seizure on such materials as an initial protective action, and revoke the registration of the implicated candidate.
On June 20, the Constitutional Court of Russia published a ruling dated May 30 refusing to consider 13 complaints by citizens against Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO that the claimants saw as violating their constitutional rights. According to them, the article on “discrediting” was discriminatory and violated their right to freedom of speech, right to freedom of assembly and the constitutional ban on imposing a mandatory ideology. They emphasized that the state could not rank value judgments and beliefs as correct or incorrect, and criticism of the use of the military should not form the basis for stigmatization and ostracism. The Constitutional Court ruled that this administrative article did not contradict the Russian Constitution. The court found that the article used the concept of defamation in its generally accepted meaning, “undermining the confidence of individual citizens and the society as a whole in someone's actions (activities). According to the Constitutional Court, the assertion that decisions of state bodies are motivated by the need to protect the interests of Russia, peacekeeping and security considerations should not be questioned “arbitrarily, solely on based on subjective assessment and perception,” and, additionally, the military requires public support to uphold their morale and psychological condition. A negative assessment made in public can “support the forces that oppose the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens,” even if the author of the statement had no such intent. This is especially true for calls to “hinder the use” of troops. The Constitutional Court believes that Article 20.3.3 CAO does not introduce a mandatory ideology, is not aimed at war propaganda, is not discriminatory and does not encroach on the freedom to hold certain beliefs, “because such freedom does not presuppose that a person commits an offense. This ruling by the Constitutional Court could be construed as permitting any additional limitations on freedom of speech. Essentially, if a law categorizes the expression of certain beliefs as an offense, such restrictions could be allowed, regardless of their compliance with the Constitution. One must question whether the Constitutional Court neglected its direct responsibilities in this instance.
Sanctions for Statements against the Authorities
Discrediting the Use of the Armed Forces or Government Agencies
We view as inappropriate the charges under Article 20.3.3 CAO for discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces and the activities of government agencies abroad as well as under Article 280.3 CC for repeatedly discrediting these entities, unless the relevant statements are accompanied by direct calls for violence.
According to the Mediazona portal, as of the second half of June, the total number of cases under Article 20.3.3 CAO, received by Russian courts since its introduction, has reached 7182 and continues to grow. As before, people face sanctions for their offline and online statements, for picketing or displaying posters, for slogans on their clothes, for graffiti on various objects, for distribution of printed campaign materials, for singing Ukrainian songs, and so on.
In June, we became aware of four sentences under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC (repeatedly discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces).
- On May 23, the Engels District Court in the Saratov Region fined Ukrainian citizen Vladimir Martynenko 100 thousand rubles. He was released from paying the fine due to the amount of time spent in pre-trial detention. The case was based on his posts on social networks. Previously, in October 2022, he was fined 30 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 CAO for posting on Odnoklassniki his criticism of the actions of Russian troops and his statements about “neo-Nazism that is present” in Russia’s armed forces.
- On May 29, the Pavlovsky District Court of the Voronezh Region sentenced Yevgeny Tronev to a punishment not involving loss of liberty. The case was based on unspecified posts Tronev had made on a public channel of a messaging service. In April 2022, Tronev was fined under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for his VKontakte post.
- On June 8, the Nizhnevartovsk City Court fined Yevgeny Fedosov 150 thousand rubles for seven posts he had shared on VKontakte. The posts expressed disagreement with the conduct of a special operation in Ukraine; in one of them, Fedosov blamed Vladimir Putin for the military actions. Earlier, in June 2022, he was fined 30 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for using anti-war hashtags on social networks.
- On June 29, the Chernovsky District Court of Chita in Zabaykalsky Krai issued a two-year suspended sentence to Mikhail Romanov with a two-year probationary period under Article 280.3 Part 1, Article 282 Part 1 (inciting hatred and enmity and humiliation of human dignity) and Article 280 Part 2 CC (public incitement to extremism published on the Internet). The grounds for the criminal prosecution are unclear. Prior to this, Romanov had faced penalties under three different administrative articles. In particular, in July 2022, he received a fine of 30 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 CAO for a comment he made under a post in the "Zabaykalsky Krai News" VKontakte community. He expressed his view that invading a foreign country and killing its residents was a disgrace. Romanov later stated that he faced charges under the same article for a second time, but no information regarding this case could be found on the court's website.
In June, we were informed of seven new cases initiated at different points in time under Article 280.3 Part 1 CC.
- Back in December of last year, a criminal case was opened against Natalya Kuklina from Petrozavodsk; she was banned from certain actions. Earlier, in the spring and summer of 2022, the city court received eight reports against Kuklina under Article 20.3.3 CAO. The reports were compiled for her anti-war leaflets, stickers and a VKontakte post. Fines were imposed based on three reports, and the other administrative cases were terminated or returned to the police.
- The Buzuluksky District Court is reviewing the case against Mikhail Kolokolnikov, who had previously incurred fines for shouting “Glory to Ukraine!” and for his public criticism of the “special operation.”
- A criminal case was initiated against a resident of Norilsk (possibly Vladislav Nikolaev) previously fined under 20.3.3 CAO for anti-war stickers on his car. He also allegedly posted on a social network statements and collage “containing statements that undermine the dignity, authority and confidence in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation." He was placed under travel restrictions.
- In Aramil of the Sverdlovsk Region, a search was carried out at Darya Sergeeva's home. Sergeeva, a teacher in an arts school, was interrogated and released under travel restrictions. Previously, she faced responsibility for her posts on Instagram. The criminal prosecution was also related to Sergeeva’s Instagram posts, including the ones about the anti-war action she conducted on February 24, 2023, when she created an impromptu memorial for the dead Ukrainians next to the local civil war heroes monument. The memorial included flowers, a candle, portraits, a stuffed toy and the note “February lasts all year. Too many sins to be washed away; no prayers will ever suffice.”
- In the second half of the month, Marina Melikhova, a well-known activist of the “Citizens of the USSR” movement, was detained in Krasnodar Krai and then placed in pre-trial detention as a defendant in a criminal case related to unspecified social network posts. She had been released from a penal colony shortly before that, having served her sentence for inciting extremist activities. Earlier, in October 2022, the Leninsky District Court of Krasnodar imposed on Melikhova two fines, 30 thousand rubles each, under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for her publications on YouTube and the Telegram channel of her organization, the Unified Trade Union of Oppositionists (Yediny profsoyuz oppozitionerov). The court ruled at that time that Melikhova’s publications described the actions of the Russian Armed Forces “as criminal and connected to genocide and murder of Ukrainian citizens” and that she spoke out against the use of the military.
- Yakov Ovchinnikov, a photographer and activist from Perm, stated in late June that his relatives’ home had been searched as part of a criminal case initiated against him; he is currently staying abroad. In April 2022, the Leninsky District Court of Perm fined the photographer 30 thousand rubles under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO for his comment on a social network about the use of mobile crematoria in the Russian army.
- In late June, it became known that a resident of Sosnovy Bor, probably Mikhail Popov, faced charges for repeatedly posting on social networks information discrediting the army and officials. He was placed under house arrest. In July 2022, the Sosnovy Bor City Court fined Popov under Article 20.3.3 Part 1 CAO.
“Fakes about the Army” Motivated by Hatred
We disagree with the use of the motive of political hatred in libel cases, including in cases of spreading false information about the Russian army. The manifestation of political or ideological hatred, in and of itself, is not criminalized, and we believe that it is appropriate to classify this motive as an aggravating circumstance only in articles on crimes that pose a serious public danger, namely, in articles on the use of violence. We believe that the motive of political hatred in cases of military “fakes” is invoked inappropriately. People who publish information about military operations in Ukraine that differs from the official position most often ideologically and politically disagree with the course of the authorities and thus, in most of these cases it is a form of peaceful political criticism, which should not be limited. Therefore, we consider prosecution under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC (disseminating knowingly false information about the use of the Russian armed forces motivated by political hatred) inappropriate, unless the incriminating statements contain incitement to violence.
In June, we became aware of five such verdicts.
- On June 22, the Sovetsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region sentenced local activist Igor Baryshnikov to seven and a half years in a minimum-security penal colony with a four-year ban on administering resources on the Internet. The criminal case was based on Baryshnikov's posts on social networks, in which he wrote that Russia was committing war crimes.
- On June 22, the Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma sentenced Alexander Zykov, a former coordinator of the local Alexei Navalny headquarters, in absentia to five years in a minimum-security penal colony with a three-year ban on administering Internet resources. The charges were based on six VKontakte posts about the military action in Ukraine. Among other issues, the activist also wrote about events in Bucha and Sumy.
- On June 28, the Yoshkar-Ola City Court of Mari El sentenced local blogger Andrei Filippov to a fine of 1.8 million rubles. The case was based on a video he posted on YouTube in March of 2022, which contrasted official statements of the Russian Ministry of Defense with Ukrainian media reports.
- On June 28, the Pervomaisky District Court of Kirov completed its re-trial of the case of composer Prokhor Protasov currently residing in Canada. He was sentenced in absentia to five years in a minimum-security penal colony with a three-year ban on administering Internet resources. The case was based on the fact that Protasov had shared the information published by Meduza, Current Time TV (Nastoyashcheye Vremya), and Maxim Katz about the missile attack in Kremenchuk and the events in Bucha. Protasov received the same verdict in his case in February, but the Kirov Regional Court overturned it and sent the case for a new consideration.
- On June 29, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow issued a sentence in absentia to Ilya Krasilshchik. The media manager was sentenced to eight years in a minimum-security penal colony with a four-year ban on administering Internet resources. The case was based on his post about events in Bucha and his interview on Ilya Shepelin’s YouTube channel.
On June 28, the Kemerovo Regional Court reviewed the complaint against the sentence to Bulat Shumekov handed down by the Kiselyovsk City Court in March. The appellate court reduced his term of imprisonment from seven to five and half years in a minimum-security penal colony. The case against Shumekov was based on unspecified videos about the military operation in Ukraine.
Vandalism
We doubt the validity of imposing sanctions for vandalism motivated by political hatred (Article 214 Part 2 CC), since, in most cases, these actions represent a form of political propaganda. As we said above, we believe that the motive of political hatred is only appropriate as an aggravating circumstance in the articles related to the use of violence. Additionally, in our opinion, unless the property damage is significant, vandalism cases should be terminated for insignificance. In significant cases where the material damage was still relatively minor, we suggest introducing an article similar to Article 7.17 CAO that penalizes destruction or damage of other people's property or amending Article 7.17. Termination of the case with the appointment of a judicial fine also seems to us a reasonable compromise.
In June, we learned about two sentences under Article 214 Part 2 CC for politically motivated vandalism.
- On May 17, a magistrate of Court District No. 16 in Mogochinsky Judicial District of Zabaykalsky Krai sentenced local resident Alexander Korus to a year of restriction of freedom. Korus placed graffiti calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “fascist,” comparing supporters of his course to zombies, criticizing the military action in Ukraine, expressing his support for Ukraine and protesting against the mobilization, on fences of various Russian Railways facilities and automobile bridges. He also painted “1984” on fences – according to his verdict, he intended to compare the events taking place in Russia to the plot of George Orwell's 1984 – a novel about a totalitarian regime in a fictional state where people live under constant control.
- On June 6, the Ukhta City Court of the Komi Republic sentenced Vladislav Kraval to six years and three months in a minimum-security penal colony under Article 214 Part 2 CC and Article 207 Part 3 CC (knowingly false communication about an impending act of terrorism to destabilize the actions of the authorities). Kraval’s charges under Article 214 CC, stemmed from an incident in June 2022. While in the state of alcoholic intoxication, he used spray paint to scrawl obscenity-laden anti-war messages on various city properties. These included a banner decorated with a Z letter in the St. George ribbon colors and the slogan "#For the Victory", the walls and terrace siding of the City Palace of Culture, the wall of a power substation near the Palace, and the pavement at a bus stop. The reported damages amounted to 26,500 rubles. Separately, Kraval was also charged under Article 207 Part 3 CC. This charge originated from an incident in September 2022, when an inebriated Kraval contacted the police. He left a message providing false information about an alleged planned arson against the local military registration and enlistment office.
We became aware of new similar cases against four people.
- In Kerch, a criminal case was initiated against local residents Yegor Savchenko and Mikhail Zhidkov; both were placed under house arrest. According to investigators, they covered various urban sites with graffiti that insulted the Russian authorities, denied that Crimea belonged to Russia and were directed against the military operation in Ukraine.
- In Rybinsk of the Yaroslavl Region, criminal cases were initiated against two local residents. One of them, according to investigators, left graffiti critical of Vladimir Putin and armed actions in Ukraine at multiple sites along Volzhskaya Embankment, including on the model of ISU-152 self-propelled howitzer, “part of the installation to commemorate those who died in the Great Patriotic War.” The criminal case against the second defendant, also based on anti-war graffiti and statements in support of political prisoners, was initiated not only under Article 214 Part 2 CC but also under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC (participating in the activities of an extremist organization) Investigators believe this Rybinsk resident was influenced by videos produced by supporters of Alexei Navalny and published on the politician's birthday.
Inciting Hatred against the Authorities and Their Supporters
We classify as inappropriate the cases under Article 20.3.1 CAO (inciting hatred or enmity or humiliating human dignity) for criticism of civil servants, including law enforcement officials or of military personnel, unless such statements are associated with calls for or credible threats of violence. We recorded one such case in June. In mid-June, the Anzhero-Sudzhensk City Court in the Kemerovo Region issued a fine of 10 thousand rubles to retiree and trade union activist Oleg Tyryshkin. The case was based on offensive comments about FSB officers made by Tyryshkin in VKontakte groups in November 2022.
It should be noted that, back in early June, the Mezhdurechensk City Court of the Kemerovo Region terminated two similar cases against activist Maksim Andrianov on formal grounds. He faced charges for reposting a video of the Kemerovo opposition leader Mikhail Alferov, for which Alferov had previously been punished, as it was found to incite hatred “against the social group ‘law enforcement agencies,’ the social group ‘the judiciary,’ the social group ‘representatives of the federal and municipal government,’ the social group ‘representatives of business.’”
Organized Anti-Government Activity
Navalny's Supporters
On June 14, the Kirovsky District Court of Ufa issued a verdict against Lilia Chanysheva, the former head of the local Navalny headquarters, and activist Rustem Mulyukov. Chanysheva was found guilty under three articles. She was sentenced to seven and a half years in a minimum-security penal colony and a fine of 400 thousand rubles under Article 282.1 Part 3 CC (creating an extremist community with the use of an official position). In addition to the principal punishment, Chanysheva is facing a seven-year ban on administering Internet resources, organizing public events or participating in them. Her sentence includes two years of restriction of freedom after release. She also faced three years of imprisonment under Article 280 Part 1 CC (public calls for extremist activity) and a fine of 100 thousand rubles under Article 239 Part 3 CC (participation in a non-profit organization whose activities are associated with encouraging citizens to commit illegal acts), however, she was released from punishment under these two articles due to the expiry of the limitation period.
Mulyukov was convicted under Article 282.1 Part 2 CC (participating in activities of an extremist community) also for his involvement in Alexei Navalny’s organizations. He was sentenced to two and a half years in a minimum-security penal colony with a year of restriction of freedom and a two-year ban on organizing public events or participating in them. Mulyukov has Group I disability and needs periodic dialysis.
We consider the recognition of Alexei Navalny's organizations as extremist inappropriate and believe that there are no grounds for prosecuting his supporters under the articles of the Criminal Code that cover participation in extremist communities and organizations recognized as extremist.
Meanwhile, on June 19, the visiting session of the Moscow City Court started considering the case of Navalny and his colleague Daniel Kholodny, former technical director of Navalny LIVE. The session takes place in correctional colony No. 6 in the Vladimir region, where Navalny is serving his sentence. The hearings are held behind closed doors. Navalny is charged under six Criminal Code articles: Article 282.1 Part 1 (creation of an extremist community), Article 282.3 Part 1 (financing of extremist activities), Article 151.2 Part 2 (involvement of minors in illegal activity), Article 239 Part 2 (creation of a non-profit organization whose activities are associated with encouraging citizens to commit unlawful acts) and under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 280 (calls for extremism, including on the Internet). Kholodny was charged under Article 282.3 Part 1 and Article 282.1 Part 2 CC.
In early June, a criminal case under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC was opened against Ilya Danilov, former coordinator of the Navalny Headquarters in Lipetsk. According to the Investigative Committee, the Navalny Headquarters existed in Lipetsk from 2017 to 2021. In 2021, Danilov left the country and began to “carry out illegal activities” from abroad, posting “messages of an extremist orientation” on a messenger channel (the messenger in question is, probably, Telegram). The investigative committee provided no details regarding the content of these messages or the ways they related to the activities of the Navalny headquarters. Previously, Danilov was placed on the federal wanted list for a case under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 CC opened in connection with a Telegram post published in March 2022.
The Left Resistance
In early July, Alyona Krylova, a defendant in the Left Resistance case, was detained in the Kyrgyz Republic. On June 6, the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek placed her under arrest. Krylova's lawyers said they were challenging this decision. Krylova had previously filed a petition for obtaining refugee status in Kyrgyzstan, and she can’t be deported before receiving the response to her refugee status request. The Left Resistance movement was created in 2017 by activist Daria Polyudova under the slogans of the Marxist “democratic revolution in Russia,” expected to begin as the “decolonization of regions and peoples of Russia” and continue as an “international revolution to liberate all peoples and regions of the planet.” On the Left Resistance VKontakte page, the movement published calls for the overthrow of power, including the calls to violence. However, the group was small, enjoyed little popularity, and, as far as we know, made no preparations for actual violent activity, and therefore, in our opinion, posed no great public danger. Nevertheless, a criminal case against several alleged participants of the movement was opened on November 8, 2021. The court found Polyudova guilty under Article 282.1 Part 1 CC and Article 205.2 Part 2 CC (public justification of terrorism on the Internet) in late 2022 and sentenced her to nine years in a minimum-security penal colony, adding three years to the punishment that she had been serving in another case. The court issued a three-year suspended sentence to her fellow activist Kirill Kotov under Article 282.1 Part 2 CC. Similarly to Kotov, Alyona Krylova and three other activists are charged with participation in an extremist community for holding public actions, administering the Left Resistance VKontakte page and disseminating information about the movement on the Internet.
Sanctions for Displaying Banned Symbols
On June 3, the Leninsky District Court of Krasnodar placed local resident Mikhail Lyakh under arrest for 15 days under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO (public display of Nazi or extremist symbols) for posting the Ukrainian flag with the caption “Glory to Ukraine!” on his VKontakte page. On June 8, the Sochi police filed a report on Ragim B., a 17-year-old athlete from Izhevsk, who used a collage with the same slogan on his WhatsApp avatar. On June 21, the Cherkessk City Court of Karachay-Cherkessia issued a fine of one thousand rubles to Roman Latoshin for writing “various indecent slogans,” including the one mentioned above, on the doors and hallway walls of a residential building, covering every floor from the first to the fifth. On June 22, the Krasnoperekopsky District Court of Crimea fined Yury Pershko 1,500 rubles for shouting “Glory to Ukraine!” while drunk and in the presence of Russian military personnel. Law enforcement agencies consider this slogan an attribute of extremist organizations, the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defence (UNA–UNSO) and the Right Sector, banned by a Supreme Court decision. We believe that charges under Article 20.3 CAO in such cases are inappropriate. This article penalizes displaying the symbols or attributes of banned organizations but not publishing their slogans. In addition, the slogan “Glory to Ukraine,” which came into use in the early 20th century, cannot be viewed solely as the motto of Ukrainian nationalist organizations banned in Russia. In recent years it has been ubiquitous in Ukraine and, since 2018, it has become an official greeting in the Ukrainian army and police.
On June 7, the Chertanovsky District Court of Moscow placed Belarusian citizen Dmitry Golovlev under arrest for 15 days. The case was based on his actions in May, when, together with his wife, he launched white-and-blue balloons with a white-blue-white flag attached to them into the sky of the Moscow Chertanovo Severnoye district. The court ruled that Golovlev was thus promoting the symbols of the Freedom of Russia Legion recognized as a terrorist organization in Russia. We believe that sanctions under Article 20.3 Part 1 CAO of people who use the symbols of prohibited organizations to promote their activities can be appropriate. The white-blue-white flag, however, appeared among Russian emigrants in late February 2022, prior to the creation of the banned Freedom of Russia Legion, and is still used regularly without any connection to this organization.
On June 5, the Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan fined Vadim Borisov two thousand rubles. The day before, Borisov held a solitary picket with an English-language poster demanding the release of Alexei Navalny. The court decided that the text contained symbols of Navalny's banned structures. Borisov was also sentenced to 28 hours of community service for organizing an action without a permit (Article 20.2 Part 2 CAO), and his wife Olesya was fined 20 thousand rubles under the same article. We would like to reiterate that, in our opinion, there were no sufficient legal grounds for banning Navalny's organizations as extremist. It is even less clear on what grounds the court in Borisov’s case classified the very name of Navalny or other slogans in his support as symbols of these organizations.
Several additional similar cases took place in June.
On June 5, Vladimir Shiryaev, a recent high school graduate from the Arkhangelsk Region, was fined 1,500 rubles by the Velsky District Court. Shiryaev and his girlfriend had distributed leaflets throughout the Velsk district, including on the bulletin board of a local food store and information stands in residential building lobbies. These leaflets featured a photo of Alexei Navalny and a QR code that directed to a post on the Team Navalny Telegram channel, displaying the organization's logo and a call to join the Navalny Headquarters. Shiryaev also received an additional fine under Article 20.3.3 CAO.
On June 15, the Proletarsky District Court of Tula fined Kirill Yermakov two thousand rubles. An image containing symbols of the banned FBK and Alexei Navalny headquarters had been found on Ermakov's VKontakte page.
On June 21, the Kievsky District Court of Simferopol placed local resident, Denis Bulygin under arrest for 15 days for the slogan “Freedom to Navalny!” displayed on his Facebook profile picture. A screenshot of the profile picture was published on the Crimean SMERSH Telegram channel of local activist Alexander Talipov. The employees of the local counter-extremism center saw the post and pressed charges against Bulygin. The court ruling stated that the slogan was an attribute of the Navalny Headquarters.
It was reported in June that the Industrial District Court of Izhevsk fined Andrei Polikarpov one thousand rubles in the latter part of March. Polikarpov's fine was for posting a collage on VKontakte, which portrayed Vladimir Putin against the backdrop of the swastika-decorated flag of Nazi Germany. Polikarpov obviously used Nazi symbols as a form of political criticism, not as an endorsement of Nazism.
The same, most likely, can be said about the case of Dmitry Batygin sentenced to a fine of one thousand rubles on June 17 by the Ust-Labinsky District Court of Krasnodar Krai for posting on Odnoklassniki an image that included the swastika and the SS emblem. Batygin said in court that he had taken the image from a book by Erich Maria Remarque, which condemned Nazism, and, accordingly, based on the note to Article 20.3 CAO, he should be released from responsibility. The court did not agree with this argument and imposed a fine. Batygin had been previously fined for discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces after sending a number of anti-war messages to a parents’ chat on WhatsApp.
Another case worth noting is the decision of the Blagoveshchensk City Court, which, on June 7, issued a fine of 1,500 rubles to Sergei Trush, a former deputy of the Amur Regional Legislative Assembly. The administrative case was based on a video parody of the clip “We” by SHAMAN, shared by Trush on the “Blagoveshchensk No. 1” Telegram channel. Trush asserted that he identified Nazi rhetoric in SHAMAN's original video, prompting him to create and share a satirical version on social media for comparative purposes. The video he produced includes a montage of scenes from the SHAMAN video interspersed with shots from the film Cabaret, a story set against the backdrop of the rise of Nazism in the Weimar Republic. Some scenes depicted German citizens adorned with swastikas. Trush categorized his video as educational.
Several more people were punished for displaying Nazi symbols outside of any political context.
On June 8, the Tsentralny District Court of Novokuznetsk issued a fine of one thousand rubles to Alexander Matorin. This decision was prompted by a photograph found on his VKontakte page, showcasing a model tank decorated with symbols of Nazi Germany. Matorin's page content suggests that he is a hobbyist model builder with a particular interest in World War II military equipment. There was no evidence found to suggest any Nazi sympathies on his part.
Ekaterina B., placed under arrest for 13 days on June 28 by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, also likely never harbored any propaganda intent. Her case was based on a photograph she had attached to a questionnaire on a sex dating site – she was dressed in a uniform similar to that of an SS officer. One of the photos shows her wearing a swastika armband. We would like to note that the administration of the online dating platform could have removed a posting with this kind of controversial content.
It also became known in June that, in late March, the Yakutsk City Court fined Taisiya Yavlovskaya, the director of the Asian goods store Kyo Shop, two thousand rubles under Article 20.3 Part 2 CAO for selling prohibited symbols. In December 2022, a police officer found keychains adorned with the swastika in her anime store. The case included an expert opinion stating that the symbol specifically represented the paraphernalia of Nazi Germany, and that “any images of the swastika (whether clockwise or counterclockwise) or images similar to it to the extent of confusion, or any symbols close to it in their meaning constitute a provocation and evoke associations with Nazi ideology and extremism.” Yavlovskaya's lawyer pointed out that this symbol has a different meaning in Buddhist culture and noted that the expert opinion failed to provide a translation of the text printed on key rings. The court, however, did not accept these and other arguments of the defense. It should be noted that the left-facing swastika is indeed an ancient solar symbol widely used in Buddhism. We do not know what text was printed on the key chains, but it was likely also associated with Buddhism. In this context, in our opinion, there was no reason to view the distribution of the paraphernalia as contributing to the propaganda of Nazism.
Protecting Historical Memory and Traditional Values, “Enforcing Tolerance”
Sanctions for “Rehabilitating Nazism”
In early June, local resident Sergei Sosov was detained in Tula. A criminal case was opened against him under Article 354.1 Part 4 CC (distribution on the Internet of information about the days of Russia’s military glory expressing clear disrespect for society). The case against the Tula resident was based on a collage posted on his VKontakte page in June 2021. The image depicts the participants of the Immortal Regiment action, but a veteran’s portrait on one of the placards is replaced by a photo of Adolf Hitler. Sosov’s motive in posting this image is unclear – he adds multiple posts to his page every day, apparently sharing any content that catches his attention. Nothing seems to indicate that the purpose of his frenzied activity could be Nazi propaganda. Sosov had previously been arrested twice for posting Nazi symbols, but neither case, in our opinion, involved actual Nazi propaganda. He also had one arrest for posting symbols of Navalny's banned organizations and was fined under Article 5.26 Part 2 CAO (deliberate public desecration of articles, marks and emblems relating to the world outlook symbols) for posting collages that included Orthodox icons. We view all these sanctions against him as inappropriate.
In mid-June, it became known that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia was considering a criminal case under the same Article 354.1 Part 4 CC against Sergei Drugov, a blogger and the author of the “War is a Cringe” Telegram channel. The case was built around Drugov’s channel sharing a message from the Feminist Anti-War Resistance. In a post entitled, “May 9th: the Misery Day, the Death Regiment, the Parade on Spilled Blood,” the feminist group criticized the commemoration of Victory Day, citing the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine, and announced alternative mourning actions for May 9. We maintain that critique of certain ways of celebrating Victory Day should not constitute grounds for prosecution unless it includes Nazi propaganda.
Sanctions for “Insulting the Feelings of Believers”
In the second half of June, it became known that the court found a resident of the Penza Region guilty under Article 148 Part 1 CC (public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed in order to insult the religious feelings of believers) and sentenced him to 160 hours of community service. The case was based on negative comments by the defendant about Orthodox priests and Christians. We do not know the exact content of the comments. However, in our opinion, the vague concept of “insulting the religious feelings of believers,” introduced into Article 148 CC, does not and cannot have a clear legal meaning, therefore we oppose prosecution under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 148. In our opinion, charges would have been appropriate only if the Penza resident had published materials that incited hatred toward the clergy and believers, and then such actions could have been qualified under Article 20.3.1 CAO.
On June 23, it became known that the Zamoskvoretsky Inter-District Prosecutor's Office of Moscow opened a case against local resident Adam Fox under Article 5.26 Part 2 CAO (deliberate public desecration of articles, marks and emblems relating to the world outlook symbols). The administrative case was based on “a photographic image of a cross with an icon of Jesus Christ leaning against the female genitalia,” which Fox posted on VKontakte about six years ago. In our opinion, posting such images online should not be interpreted as a desecration of objects of religious veneration, since such posts involve no actions with actual religious paraphernalia. It is also worth noting that the concept of “desecration” has never been legally defined.
Sanctions for Involvement in the Columbine Movement
It became known in mid-June that a criminal case under Article 205.5 CC (organizing the activities of a terrorist organization or participating in it) was opened in Bashkortostan against 17-year-old Karina, an eleventh grader from Sterlitamak charged with involvement in the Columbine movement. In April, the law enforcement seized her personal diaries and computer equipment, and their examination reportedly showed that starting in the spring of 2022, the girl corresponded on social networks with other teenagers and promoted among them the idea of attacking educational institutions. “Columbine” is a stable term used in Russia to refer to mass murders in educational institutions. Columbine is banned in Russia as a terrorist organization, but there is no reason to believe that supporters of school killings form a single organization. It is also worth noting that the actions of school shooters usually have no political component. The federal law “On Counteracting Terrorism” defines terrorism specifically as “the ideology of violence and the practice of influencing decision-making by public authorities,” which “involves terrorizing the population and/or other forms of illegal violence.” We also believe that the ban against Columbine as a terrorist organization complicates preventive work with students at risk.
Persecution against Religious Organizations and Believers
Jehovah's Witnesses
In June, prosecutions against Jehovah's Witnesses continued on the charges of involvement in the activities of local religious organizations banned as extremist. We believe that the decision to ban them had no legal grounds and consider it a manifestation of religious discrimination. It is worth reminding that, in June 2022, the ECHR ruled on the Jehovah's Witnesses’ complaint stating that the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses materials and organizations and sanctions against believers violated the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The ECHR demanded the end to the criminal cases under Article 282.2 CC against Jehovah's Witnesses and the release of imprisoned believers.
- On June 6, the Partisansk City Court of Primorsky Krai sentenced Irina Buglak, and a person identified only as “I”, born in 1997 (the full name of this defendant is unknown). Both were charged under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC (organizing the activities of an extremist organization), but the court reclassified the actions of the defendants under Part 2 of the same article (participating in the activities of an extremist organization). The court issued Buglak a suspended sentence of two and a half years with a probationary period of the same length and an additional restriction of liberty for seven months. The court released the second defendant, “I”, from criminal responsibility based on the note to Article 282.2 CC (a person who committed a crime for the first time and voluntarily withdrew from participation in an extremist organization is exempted from criminal liability unless their actions also constitute a different offense). Both defendants were charged for allegedly continuing the activities of the local Jehovah's Witnesses organization starting in August 2018. Meanwhile, the believers emphasized that this community was liquidated back in 2015 and thus was not declared extremist with other congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2017 – and therefore, there were no formal reasons for the charge of continuation of the activities of an extremist organization in this case.
- On June 23, the Tyndinsky District Court of the Amur Region issued a verdict against four Jehovah's Witnesses. Vladimir Bukin, Valery Slashchev and Sergei Yuferov were sentenced to six years and four months in a minimum-security penal colony under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC and Article 282.2 Part 1.1 CC (involvement of others in the activities of an extremist organization). Mikhail Burkov was sentenced to six years and two months in a penal colony under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC only. Earlier, in October 2022, the same court sentenced the believers to the same punishment, but in December, the Amur Regional Court overturned the sentence and sent the case for a re-trial in the court of first instance. The Supreme Court resolution adopted in October 2021, says that involving others in activities of an extremist organization committed by the organizer (head) of this organization is covered under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC and requires no additional qualifications under Article 282.2 Part 1.1 CC. Thus, the charge under Article 282.2 Part 1.1 in this case is excessive.
- On June 30, the Leninsky District Court of Novosibirsk sentenced Dmitry Dolzhikov under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC to three years of imprisonment but then chose to replace it with compulsory labor for the same amount of time with a 10% salary deduction. As an additional punishment, Dolzhikov also faces one year of restriction of freedom.
- On June 15, the Kovrov City Court sentenced Roman Adestov from the village of Ivanovo to one year in a penal colony and eleven months of restriction of freedom under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC. The court took into account the time spent in pre-trial detention and under house arrest, so Adestov already served his term, and only restriction of freedom will be applied.
- On June 20, the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region sentenced Alexander Skvortsov to seven years in a minimum-security penal colony and Vladimir Moiseenko – to six years in a penal colony; Valery Tibiy received a six-year suspended sentence with a five-year probationary period. Additional punishments were also imposed on all defendants – a two-year ban on leading or participating in public and religious organizations as well as restriction of freedom for one year. All three were found guilty under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC. Earlier, in November 2015, Skvortsov and Moiseenko were sentenced in the case of sixteen Taganrog Jehovah's Witnesses. At that time, Skvortsov received a suspended sentence of five and a half years, and Moiseenko was sentenced to a fine. It is worth reminding that the Rostov Regional Court recognized the Taganrog community as extremist on September 11, 2009, long before the total ban.
- On June 20, the Tsentralny District Court of Sochi sentenced Danil Suvorov under Article 282.2 Parts 1.1 and 2 CC to six years in a minimum-security penal colony and one and a half years of restriction of freedom after release.
On June 1, the Jewish Autonomous Region Court considered the appeals against the sentence to four Jehovah's Witnesses issued in December 2022 by the Birobidzhansky District Court. The appellate court left the guilty verdict in effect but reduced the terms of imprisonment for two out of four believers. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Jewish Autonomous Region Court has lessened the terms of imprisonment for Valery Krieger and Sergei Shulyarenko by three months. These individuals, who were found guilty under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC and Article 282.3 Part 1 CC (financing extremist activities), now face a sentence of six years and nine months in prison. According to the press release distributed by the regional FSB Directorate, the terms were reduced even further to five years and 11 months. The Regional Court approved the terms of incarceration for Alam Aliyev (six and a half years under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC) and Dmitry Zagulin (three and a half years under Article 282.3 Part 1 CC).
In June, information appeared about several new cases opened against Jehovah's Witnesses.
- It was reported that, back in April, Dmitry Terebilov from Kostroma, who was sentenced in 2021 to three years in a maximum-security penal colony under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC, is now implicated in a new criminal case. Now he faces an extension of his prison term. His fellow believers report that the charges were based on Terebilov's answers to his cellmate’s questions about the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.
- We were informed that, in early May, a criminal case was opened under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC against believers from Anadyr in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug: Sergei Romanov, Alexei Volkov, Yuri Yumashev and Alexandra Loshkareva. Romanov was placed under arrest in Volgograd. The charging decision stated that all four defendants organized the activities of the “unregistered Jehovah’s Witnesses religious group in the town of Anadyr” on May 20, 2017. It's worth noting that the Anadyr community was not registered at the time the ban against the international organization of Jehovah's Witnesses was imposed, so it could not have been subject to that ban. Therefore, it remains unclear on what basis the investigation decided to charge the believers under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC, which penalizes the continuation of activities related to previously banned organizations.
- In late June, the search raid took place in the house of Yulia Globa in the village of Vorobyovka in Unechsky District of the Bryansk Region. The investigative activities were part of a criminal case under Article 282 Part 2 CC, which the local department of the Investigative Committee opened against Globa in May.
Followers of Said Nursi
On June 27, the Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow issued a sentence against six followers of Said Nursi in the case of involvement in the religious association Nurcular, recognized in Russia as an extremist organization. Defendant Yevgeny Tarasov was sentenced to six and a half years in a minimum-security penal colony with a four-year ban on leading or participating in religious organizations under Article 282.2 Part 1 CC. Mukazhan Ksyupov, Parviz Zeynalov and Urdash Abdullaev were each sentenced to six years in prison with a similar four-year ban, as well as one year of restriction of freedom. Ilmir Abdullin and Nikolai Nesterovich were sentenced under Article 282.2 Part 2 CC to two years and seven months in a minimum-security penal colony with a restriction of freedom for ten months. The defendants were found guilty of organizing “home madrasas” to study Nursi's books.
Nurcular was recognized as extremist in 2008 based on a series of unreasonable bans against the books of Turkish Islamic theologian Said Nursi for promoting the superiority of Islam over other religions. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that by banning these books Russian courts had violated Article 10 of the European Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression. We also believe that Russian Muslims who study Nursi's heritage do not constitute a single organization. Meanwhile, as a result of the ban against Nurcular, Muslims who read and discuss Nursi's books face criminal charges under Article 282.2 CC.
Hizb ut-Tahrir
On June 16, the Southern District Military Court found Ansar Osmanov from Crimea guilty of involvement in the Islamic radical party Hizb ut-Tahrir banned in Russia as a terrorist organization. He was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment under Article 205.5 Part 1 CC (organizing the activities of a terrorist organization) and Article 278 CC with the use of Article 30 Part 1 CC (preparing for a forcible seizure of power), with the first five years to be served in prison and the rest of the term in a maximum-security penal colony. Osmanov was sentenced to a term two years longer than what the prosecutor had requested, marking it as the lengthiest sentence imposed on Crimeans in the Hizb ut-Tahrir cases.
We believe that there were no sufficient grounds for banning Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organization since the party was never implicated in terrorist attacks. We view the charges against Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters under the “terrorist” articles of the Criminal Code, made solely based on their party activities (holding meetings, reading literature, etc.) as inappropriate. In our opinion, the fact that Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches the idea of creating a worldwide Islamic caliphate, in and of itself, does not provide the grounds for charging its followers with planning a forcible seizure of power in Russia.
