![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The essay addresses the current trends in the criminalisation of free speech in Russia. It critically discusses the amendments to the Russian Criminal Code, criminalising various forms of public expression of opinions, adopted in the years following the presidential elections in March 2012, and questions their compliance with international human rights law. Seeking to identify the motives behind the new provisions, the article argues that the amendments are intended to cause a ‘chilling effect’, to control public dissent by selective or random criminal prosecution. Two of the new criminal law provisions—‘Public Calls for Separatism’ and ‘Rehabilitation of Nazism’—are considered in detail to illustrate the author’s conclusions.
Notes
1 ‘Freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom of speech’ are used interchangeably in this essay.
2 See ‘European Parliament Resolution on the Murder of the Russian Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov and the State of Democracy in Russia’, 12 March 2015, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2015/2592(RSP), accessed 10 August 2017.
3 ‘Russia’, Freedom House, 2015, available at: http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/russia#.VdDqVUb1bcs, accessed 10 August 2017.
4 The Russian Parliament—the State Duma—is famous for its excessive activity and is often nicknamed the ‘rabid printer’. See for example Barry (Citation2013).
5 Federalnyi zakon ot 28.12.2013 No 433-FZ ‘O vnesenii izmenenii v Ugolovnyi Kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_156577/, accessed 10 August 2017.
6 Federalnyi zakon ot 05.05.2014 No 128-FZ ‘O vnesenii izmenenii v otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_162575/, accessed 10 August 2017.
7 Anti-Soviet and Counter-Revolutionary Propaganda and Agitation (Article 58.10) was punishable by at least six months’ imprisonment. In conditions of unrest or war, it was punishable by death, as in Article 58.2.
8 ‘Propaganda or agitation with the purpose of undermining or weakening of the Soviet power or with the purpose of committing or incitement to commit particularly grave crimes against the Soviet state (as defined in the law); the spreading with the same purposes of slanderous fabrications that target the Soviet political and social system; production, dissemination or storage, for the same purposes, of literature with anti-Soviet content.’ The penalty was from six months’ to seven years’ imprisonment, with possible subsequent internal exile from two to five years.
9 Article 29 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and bans censorship. See the Constitution of the Russian Federation, available at: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm, accessed 10 August 2017.
10 ‘Ugolovnyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 13 June 1996 No 63-FZ’, as amended on 18 July 2017, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/, accessed 10 August 2017.
11 Federalnyi zakon ot 25.07.2012 No 114-FZ ‘O protivodeistvii ekstremistskoi deyatelnosti’, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_37867/, accessed 10 August 2017.
12 As the Venice Commission noted, the Extremism Law, on account of its broad and imprecise wording, particularly insofar as the ‘basic notions’ defined by the Law—such as the definition of ‘extremism’, ‘extremist actions’, ‘extremist organisations’ or ‘extremist materials’—are concerned, gives too wide discretion in its interpretation and application, thus leading to arbitrariness: See ‘Revised Draft Opinion on the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity of the Russian Federation’, CDL(2012)011rev-e, 2 June 2012, available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2012)011rev-e, accessed 10 August 2017.
13 Savva Terentev’s case may serve as a good illustration of such practice. See ‘Blogger Sentenced to One Year Suspended Imprisonment’, Human Rights House Network, available at: http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/8792.html, accessed 15 August 2015.
14 See, ‘Justice or Complicity? LGBT Rights and Russian Courts’, Equal Rights Trust, available at: http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Justice%20or%20Complicity%20LGBT%20Rights%20and%20the%20Russian%20Courts_0.pdf, accessed 10 August 2017.
15 Article 5 of the Convention obliges states to criminalise ‘public provocation to commit a terrorist offence’, defined as ‘distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed’ (Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Warsaw, 16.V.2005, Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 196, available at: http://rm.coe.int/168008371c, accessed 10 August 2017).
16 ‘O sudebnoi praktike po ugolovnym delam ekstremistskoi napravlennosti’, Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda, RF No. 11, 28 June 2011, available at: http://vsrf.ru/Show_pdf.php?Id=7315, accessed 10 August 2017.
17 Federalnyi Zakon ‘O vnesenii izmenenii v stat’yu 148 Ugolovnogo Kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii i otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii v tselyakh protivodeistviya oskorbleniyu religioznykh ubezhdenii i chuvstv grazhdan ot 29.06. 2013’ No 136-FZ, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_148270/, accessed 10 August 2017.
18 See legal analysis of the draft law by Article 19, April 2013, available at: http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/3729/13-05-03-LA-russia.pdf, accessed 10 August 2017.
19 ‘Zakon o zashchite chuvstv’, Kommersant’’, 27 September 2012, available at: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2031242, accessed 10 August 2017.
20 See General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf, accessed 10 August 2017.
21 Federalnyi zakon ‘O vnesenii izmenenii v stat'yu 5 Federal'nogo zakona “O zashchite detei ot informatsii, prichinyayushchei vred ikh zdorov’yu i razvitiyu” i otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii v tselyakh zashchity detei ot informatsii, propagandiruyushchei otritsanie traditsionnykh semeinykh tsennostei’, No 135-FZ, 29 June 2013, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_148269/30b3f8c55f65557c253227a65b908cc075ce114a/#dst100019, accessed 10 August 2017.
22 The law is based on the presumption that the moral, spiritual and psychological development of children is best served by denying them access to support and information about their sexuality. This notion runs counter to Russia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified, notably in its General Comment on Adolescent Health, that the rights under the Convention include ‘developing an individual identity and dealing with one’s sexuality’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc CRC/GC/2003/4, para. 2, 1 July 2003, available at: http://dag.un.org/handle/11176/245306, accessed 10 August 2017).
23 Russian law provides for a distinction between administrative and criminal offences, with administrative procedure providing fewer fair trial guarantees than criminal procedure—a point that is regularly scrutinised from a European Convention on Human Rights standpoint (see for example, ‘Menesheva v. Russia’, No. 59261/00 European Court of Human Rights 2006-III, paras 94–8, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72700, accessed 10 August 2017; ‘Zolotukhin v. Russia’ [GC], No. 14939/03, European Court of Human Rights, 2009-I, paras 54–7, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91222, accessed 10 August 2017).
24 See Venice Commission, ‘Opinion on the Issue of the Prohibition of So-called “Propaganda of Homosexuality” in the Light of Recent Legislation in Some Council of Europe Member States’, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 95th Plenary Session (14–15 June 2013), available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2013)022-e, accessed 10 August 2017.
25 According to the Judicial Management Department of the Russian Supreme Court, in 2014 only one individual and one legal entity had been punished for the offence, available at: http://www.cdep.ru/, accessed 10 August 2017.
26 Notably, in 2010, in its submission to the International Court of Justice in Kosovo advisory proceedings, Russia recognised the so-called remedial secession exception and thus justified separatism under exceptional circumstances. See, ‘Written statement by the Russian Federation’, 16 April 2009, Para. 88, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15628.pdf, accessed 10 August 2017.
27 In early November 2013, members of United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) and A Just Russia (Spravedlivaya Rossiya) submitted another draft that provided much higher penalties for the same actions. Thus, the proposed articles 282.3 (advocacy of separatism) and 282.4 (planning, preparation and call for the undermining or violation of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the Russian Federation) provided for up to 20 years’ imprisonment. The State Duma, however, did not proceed with them.
28 According to the Russian Constitution, the Russian Federation is a federal state.
29 These ‘marches’ were public rallies in several Russian regions in 2014, demanding more autonomy for the Russian regions from the federal government.
30 ‘Dva goda Dar’’i Polyudovoi’’, Radio Svoboda, 21 December 2015, available at: http://www.svoboda.org/a/27438432.html, accessed 10 August 2017.
31 ‘Misuse of Anti-extremism’, 12 June 2015, Sova Center, available at: http://www.sova-center.ru/en/misuse/news-releases/2015/06/d32181/, accessed 10 August 2017.
32 ‘Pered evrosudom postavily krymskii vopros’, Kommersant’’, 12 January 2016, available at: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2889708, accessed 19 May 2017.
33 According to Levada, the Russian public opinion centre, in 2014–2015 between 5% and 12% of Russians did not agree with the annexation of Crimea. See ‘Ukraine, Crimea, and the Sanctions’, Levada Centre, available at: http://www.levada.ru/eng/ukraine-crimea-and-sanctions, accessed 15 August 2015.
34 ‘Voinu ne dopisali’, Kommersant’’, 18 May 2009, available at: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1164100, accessed 10 August 2017.
35 See an interview with Mikhail Ioffe that reveals some reasons behind the law: ‘Zakon Yarovoi: konets istorii?’, Radio Svoboda, 7 May 2014, available at: http://www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/25376086.html, accessed 15 August 2015.
36 ‘Stenogramma zasedaniya Gosudarstvennoi Dumy ot 04.04.2014 г’, available at: http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/4057/, accessed 10 August 2017.
37 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI.1950, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, accessed 10 August 2017.
38 In the UN Security Council Russia vetoed the Resolution condemning the genocide in Srebrenica, the legal fact of which was established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice, arguing that it was ‘counterproductive’, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33445772, accessed 19 May 2017.
39 The European Court of Human Rights accepts that the mass murder of Polish prisoners by the Soviet secret police had the features of a war crime (‘Janowiec and others v. Russia’, 55508/07 29520/09, Chamber Judgment, 16 April 2012, para. 140).
40 See for example, ‘ECtHR, Dink v. Turkey’, application 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 et 7124/09, Judgment, 14 September 2010.
41 See the Venice Commission Opinion No. 831/2015 on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session (Venice, 11–12 March 2016), available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)002-e, accessed 10 August 2017.
42 According to Article 1 of the London Charter, the IMT was set up ‘for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis’ (‘Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal. London, 8 August 1945’, International Committee of the Red Cross, available at: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/350-530009?OpenDocument, accessed 10 August 2017).
43 See ‘OSCE Media Freedom Representative Calls Recent Legislative Initiatives in Russia Potentially Harmful to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media’, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, available at: http://www.osce.org/fom/103121, accessed 15 August 2015.
44 ‘Duma Passes Bill Criminalizing Rehabilitation of Nazism’, RT, 23 April 2014, available at: http://www.rt.com/politics/154332-russia-nazi-rehabilitation-ban/, accessed 15 August 2015.
45 Explanatory note (Poyasnitelnaya zapiska) to the draft law, available at: http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(ViewDoc)?OpenAgent&arhiv/a_dz_6.nsf/ByID&C00D00C3BE1A8C1C43257C9000363A9A, accessed 19 May 2017.
46 ‘Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine’. ‘Section 130: Incitement to Hatred’, German Criminal Code, available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1241, accessed 15 August 2015.
47 Loi n° 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990 tendant à réprimer tout acte raciste, antisémite ou xenophobe, available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000532990&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id, accessed 10 August 2017.
48 ‘Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT)’, United Nations, 8 August 1945, available at: http://www.legal-tools.org/en/doc/64ffdd/, accessed 10 August 2017.
49 ‘Communication No. 550/1993: France. 16/12/96. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993’, Human Rights Committee, Fifty-Eighth Session, 21 October–8 November 1996, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/4c47b59ea48f7343802566f200352fea?OpenDocument, accessed 10 August 2017.
50 ‘European Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law’, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32008F0913, accessed 10 August 2017.
51 General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 40.
52 ‘Perincek v. Switzerland’, European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 27510/08, Grand Chamber Judgment, 15 October 2015, para. 263.
53 The Judgement of the Perm Court, available at: http://rospravosudie.com/court-permskij-kraevoj-sud-permskij-kraj-s/act-525598285/, accessed 10 August 2017.
54 ‘Lingens v. Austria’, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 9815/82, paras 39–40, 8 July 1986
55 The United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that the right to freedom of expression ‘includes the right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their governments without fear of interference or punishment’ (‘Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola’, Communication No. 1128/2002, para. 6.7, Human Rights Committee, 29 March 2005).
