Misuse of Anti-Extremism in December 2012

The following is our review of the primary and most representative cases of the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in December 2012. Rulemaking and State Control

In late December, President Vladimir Putin signed the law "On Amendments to Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code" (propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols), which both provides for an administrative fine to be issued in convictions for the public display of the attributes or symbols of extremist organizations, and increases the size of the current fines for offenses under the article. We oppose the amendment, as we have stated on numerous occasions, as the law’s language needs to be changed so that displays of such symbols without the intent of propaganda would not be penalized.

In December Roskomnadzor (Russia’s media oversight agency) announced that it was soliciting bids on a contract that would give its winner the right to monitor the country’s media for materials that violate Russian law, including extremist materials. The winning firm would keep track of such materials and conduct its own preliminary expert analyses. In 2013, in addition to basic functions, the winning firm will be required to identify information covered by the law on the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development and to monitor online media using an automatic hardware-software complex. We should note here that Roskomnador began monitoring by contract in 2009, and if there has been any benefit to such an expenditure of public funds, it has not been evident: monitoring by contract had no effect either on the number of alerts issued by Rozkomnadzor, or their quality.

In early December, we learned that Novy Urengoy authorities denied non-residents entry to the city. To enter the town, both migrants and Russian citizens must now obtain a pass from their employer or an invitation from relatives. The local authorities billed the move as a bid to fight illegal immigration and, they claim, an associated rise in crime. As part of an explanation, the head of the Interior Ministry’s Center for Extremism Prevention in the Yamal-Nenets autonomous district referred to the activation of local chapters of extremist organizations such as the Caucasus Emirate and Hizb ut-Tahrir. As Novy Urengoy is technically in a frontier area, the city is allowed to regulate entry to the territory. It is Sova’s position that the Novy Urengoy authorities have abused this rule: first, the spirit of the law in question does not make it a method of regulating migration, and secondly, a total closure of the city is a disproportionate way to deal with radical groups of any sort.

Criminal Prosecution

In early December, criminal charges against ten Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Chuvash Republic were dropped due to the absence of a crime. In 2012 the Investigative Committee filed five criminal cases against the ten defendants, which included two women, charging them under item “v” of Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred and hostility, and the humiliation of human dignity, committed by an organized group), as well as parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.1 (the creation of and participation in an extremist group). Four Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested and then released in connection with this case in summer 2012. Two of these spent five days in detention, while the other two spent 46 days there.

During the period in question, a case against 16 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog was sent to a separate proceeding. In November, the accused were re-charged under both parts of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code - organizing activities in association with an organization banned as extremist, and participating in them. We note that the earlier charges against them were found by the court to be fundamentally unlawful due to violations in the investigation.

In the beginning of the month, the Lenin District Court of Vladivostok resumed consideration of a criminal case against local Other Russia party activists Igor Popov and Aleksandr Kurov under Article 280 (public appeals for extremist activity), Part 1 of Article 282 (incitement of social hatred) and Part 2 of Article 282.2 (participation in activities in association with an organization banned as extremist). Popov and Kurov, who are accused of membership in the banned-as-extremist National Bolshevik Party (Other Russia was founded by Eduard Limonov, who is most famous as the founder of the National Bolsheviks), and also for inciting hatred against the authorities and law enforcement, had been fined heavily in October 2012. An appellate court reversed that verdict, sending the case to a retrial due to procedural violations in the district court. We do not consider the prosecution of the Other Russia activists for membership in the National Bolsheviks to be legitimate, as they are two separate organizations; in addition, the ban on the National Bolsheviks for extremism is itself unlawful. We also note, as we have so many times before, that “the authorities” and “law enforcement” should not constitute social groups in need of the special protection provided by Russia’s anti-extremism laws.

Towards the middle of December, we were made aware of a criminal case against Smolensk city council deputy Andrei Ershov filed under Part 1 of Article 282, actions to humiliate a group of persons on the grounds of membership in a particular social group, committed publicly. Ershov had made insulting remarks about juvenile inmates at Nazi concentration camps. It is Sova’s position that no matter how distasteful Ershov’s comments, former juvenile death camp prisoners are not a social group protected under Russia’s anti-extremist legislation. The case provides yet another opportunity to make plain our position on the social group clause, which is that it should not be included, full stop, in anti-extremist articles due to its total lack of definition.

In mid-December, a Tajik national was detained as part of a criminal investigation into the distribution of Hizb ut-Tahrir materials at Moscow’s Yardam Mosque in September 2012. He was charged under Article 282, incitement to hatred or enmity. He is the third detainee in the case.

In late December, a case against Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chelyabinsk was submitted to the court. Marat Bazarbaev, Rushat Valiev, Rinat Galiullin, Rinat Idelbaev and Vadim Nasyrov were arrested in July 2012 on suspicion of involvement in the group’s activities. They were charged under Part 1 of Article 30, Article 278 (an attempt at seizing power) and Part 1 of Article 205.1 (facilitating terrorist activities). Bazarbaev and Nasyrov are also charged under Part 2 of Article 282.2 (participation in the activities of an organization banned as extremist); Valiev, Galuillin and Idelbaev, under Part 2 of Article 282 (incitement to hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity); and Idebaev under Part 1 of Article 280 (public calls to extremist activity).

It is Sova’s position that the ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir is illegal, as the Supreme Court has given no reasonable foundation for it. Further, the group was banned as a terrorist organization even though it is well known that Hizb ut-Tahrir is nonviolent. It appears that the original, unlawful ban is the source of continuing abuse and unfounded accusations in Russian law enforcement’s pursuit of this radical Islamist group.

This month it was reported that the National Security Service (NSS) of Uzbekistan were carrying out illegal activities inside Russia. More specifically, according to human rights group Memorial, Uzbek agents have been intimidating, interrogating and torturing Uzbek nationals arrested on Russian soil in connection to suspected involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir. One Moscow detainee pending deportation committed suicide as a result of intimidation tactics during an interrogation. In a Kaliningrad region prison colony, a person serving time on charges of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir was seriously injured during torture by the NSS. In Moscow, an Uzbek national serving time on similar charges disappeared after his release; presumably, he was kidnapped by Uzbek security services.

During the same period, the Vyborg District Court in St. Petersburg convicted the Other Russia party activists in the so-called “Case of the 12” of continuing the activities of the banned National Bolshevik Party. Three were sentenced under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organizing the activities of an organization banned as extremist) to a fine of 200,000 rubles (about $6,600 USD – for context, the average annual salary in Russia is just over $10,000). Four others were sentenced under Part 2 of the same article, participation in an extremist organization, to a fine of 150,000 rubles (about $5,000). All were released from liability due to an expired statute of limitations, but will appeal the verdict nonetheless. The court had earlier released five other defendants in the case due to the expired statute of limitations.

For 2012 as a whole, Russian courts made 13 rulings on criminal extremism cases that we consider to have been improperly filed. Seven were delivered on charges of involvement in the activities of banned-as-extremist organizations; four on charges of promoting hatred, hostility or humiliation; and two on violent crimes in which the defendant was not properly shown to have been motivated by hatred. Two of the 13 rulings resulted in acquittals. These decisions were against 36 people, with three of them acquitted. The main victims of illegal prosecution in 2012 were those accused of involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir (two rulings, ten convicted), Jehovah’s Witnesses (two rulings, three accused; not guilty verdict), and those charged with continuation of the National Bolsheviks (one ruling, four verdicts).

Administrative Prosecution

In December, the owners of four stores in Grozny, Chechnya were fined under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (production and distribution of extremist materials) for stocking with intent to sell religious texts included among 68 materials wrongfully banned by Orenburg’s Lenin District Court in March.

Under the same article, a Karachay-Cherkess Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation was fined for the storage of two of their movement’s books; one of the books had been the subject of a ban lifted in February.

Materials Banned for Extremism

We are aware of three wrongful bans on materials for extremism in December. In the Vologda region, a mockup for leaflets from the site of opposition leader Alexei Navalny ostensibly made in the name of the ruling United Russia party as part of the Good Machine of Truth campaign was banned; in the Arsenyev, Primorsky Kray three Islamic religious texts were found to be extremist (though one was already included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials at the time of the ruling); and another eight materials were banned in the Orenburg region.

We also know of three wrongful warnings to media outlets this month. In two cases, warnings were issued that publications in question were considered extremist by a court and were included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials.