The “Misuse of Anti-Extremism” section monitors and analyzes Russian legislation aimed at combating extremism and related norms, as well as abuses in the application of this legislation.
We report on legislative innovations and analyze them for both compliance with human rights principles enshrined in international legislation and the Russian Constitution, and for potential abuses in the practical enforcement of new laws.
We describe the application of anti-extremist and related norms that we consider “inappropriate.” We classify law enforcement practices as inappropriate if they are:
· Based on norms that contradict human rights standards;
· Relying on clearly erroneous or expansive interpretations of legal norms;
· Founded on previous court decisions that we view as either not based on law or contrary to human rights standards.
Our analysis typically does not address procedural violations in extremism cases, except for those specifically characteristic of anti-extremist law enforcement, since our scope does not include monitoring and evaluating problems in the Russian law enforcement system as a whole.
On the other hand, it is important to note that we monitor the application of not only norms directly aimed at combating extremism but also certain related norms similar in spirit and letter. We are particularly interested in ideologically-based restrictions on freedom of speech, such as those prohibiting propaganda of terrorism, rehabilitation of Nazism, insulting the feelings of believers, insulting the state and society, and disseminating inaccurate information of public importance.
Occasionally, we cannot categorize certain cases as “appropriate” or “inappropriate.” This situation may arise when we lack the necessary information to analyze the validity of actions taken by law enforcement agencies and courts. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon, as law enforcement agencies and courts often find it possible and expedient to withhold much of the information regarding the investigation and trial of extremist or terrorist cases from the public.
It is also important to note that restricting freedom of speech is one of the most complex and controversial areas of law enforcement. In some cases, we find it beneficial to present different aspects of a problematic case without offering an explicit assessment.
Finally, we often evaluate different episodes of a case differently. For instance, we might view some actions by defendants as punishable, while others, in our opinion, should not be punished. Similarly, in a decision recognizing multiple materials as extremist, we might find that only some of these materials actually contain signs of incitement to hatred.
Law enforcement cases where we lack sufficient information to assess validity are only reflected in the “Russian Nationalism and Xenophobia” or “Religion in a Secular Society” sections. Cases we find problematic may be discussed in two or even three sections.
We cannot translate all news into English due to resource limitations. Therefore, the News Releases subsection contains only selected news items and monthly reviews (up to July 2024). The Reports and Analyses subsection features comprehensive or thematic reports and analytical articles. A separate subsection contains Conference Papers and Other Documents.
