News
Memorial recognises Astrakhan resident Igor Stenin as a political prisoner
 Stenin appealed against his conviction and remains at liberty, under travel restrictions, until the sentence enters into legal force. If the judgment is upheld, Stenin will have to travel to the place where he is to serve his sentence himself. Stenin is accused of posting on the ‘Russian Astrakhans’ community page on Vkontakte a short message calling for the annihilation of ‘Kremlin occupiers,’ and reposting a message by a user going by the pseudonym ‘Sergei Romanov,’ beginning with the words ‘the situation in the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation) zone is changing very rapidly’ (in fact this was a commentary placed by ‘Romanov’ under the post by Stenin). The accusation that Stenin reposted material urging extremist action is absurd. It is obvious to any person, even vaguely conversant with the principles of the way the social network Vkontakte works, that the text beginning with the words ‘the situation in the ATO zone is changing very rapidly is a comment from the user ‘Sergei Romanov’ to Stenin’s post. Both Stenin’s post and the comment from ‘Sergei Romanov’ can be separately ‘liked,’ which would be impossible if this was a case of reposting. The fact that the user ‘Sergei Romanov’ commented on the post of Stenin was indicated in the initial report by an FSB official of 28 August 2014. We consider that the conviction of an internet user for a commentary posted under their own message on a social networking site is a dangerous precedent (moreover, we note that the commentary itself is a quotation from a post on Facebook by the Ukrainian journalist, Peter Shuklinov which, in our opinion, does not constitute incitement to extremist action). It is obvious that, in the case of Stenin, the investigation, the prosecution and the court demonstrated an extreme degree of partiality and subjectivity, related to the political motivation of the criminal case. The partiality manifested itself in manifold procedural violations in the course of the trial. For example, the trial was unlawfully held in camera, and the judge did not allow the defence to call a specialist who would have explained how the social network Vkontakte works. During the trial, at the request of the prosecutor, a group of second year students from the law faculty of Astrakhan Technical University was summoned and questioned. They gave uniform evidence against Stenin, which we consider the court accepted in an insufficiently critical manner. We demand that the criminal proceedings against Igor Stenin be terminated. The recognition of a person as a political prisoner or as someone prosecuted for political motives does not mean that Memorial Human Rights Centre agrees with that person’s views or statements, nor supports that person’s statements or actions. For further details about the case visit the site: Мemorial Human Rights Centre Read this news item on our website |
Journalist Andrei Loshak in conversation with Yury Orlov (Moscow Helsinki Group)
 Source: Moscow Helsinki Group [original source: Facebook] By Andrei Loshak, journalist May was the month of many dissident anniversaries: [Natalya] Gorbanevskaya turned 80, Andrei Dmitrievich [Sakharov] – 95, the Moscow Helsinki Group – 40. I did not manage to attend any due to other commitments. Representatives of the government, of course, also declined the invitation. Understandably, of course: MHG is neither [the Russian state broadcaster] VGTRK nor the film director Govorukhin. During his younger years, Putin did as much as he could to smother people like that, but fortunately he didn’t get his hands on everyone. On this last day of spring I would like to make amends a little and tell you about Yury Orlov, physicist and founder of the Moscow Helsinki Group. In the heat of the moment he called Stalin a murderer in 1956 and as a result was immediately excluded from the party and stripped of his security pass. Orlov was sent to live in Armenia, where he swiftly became a doctor of sciences and a corresponding member of the Republican Academy of Sciences. In ’73 he signed a letter in Sakharov’s defence and once again he lost everything. He did this deliberately and taking everything into account just as you would expect of a true physicist. “I would like to dedicate my future to reconciliation with my social conscience,” he wrote in his memoirs. Upon his return to Moscow, he founded the Moscow Helsinki Group, which brought together other dissidents, who contributed to the work. It was a brilliant idea. Brezhnev had just signed the International Helsinki Accords that laid down human rights standards and other wonderful things, which were always completely ignored in the USSR, but suddenly now a few crazy people on the basis of this formal legality, started to record numerous civil rights and freedom violations within the Soviet Union and report them to foreign journalists. Orlov was sent to jail a year later. He was given 7 years in prison and 5 years' exile. He served 9 years and in 1986 he was swapped for some Soviet spies. Finding himself in the United States, Orlov returned to his scientific work. He has now been working in the prestigious Cornell University Physics Department for 30 years. We met last summer in his office and I asked him about his past exploits but he was much more interested in talking about the dark matter that is the object of his current research. May I add that the Professor is now 92. Orlov was well aware that he would be put in jail when he took up human rights work. Here is an excerpt from my interview with him. To be honest, I do not know why I recorded it and why am I sharing it. Maybe just to convince myself of the fact that apart from Russian State TV and Govorukhin, there still are people like Yury Orlov. To see the video, of the conversation, click HERE |
Boris Altshuler: Speech at the conference marking the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group
 By Boris Altshuler, Chair of the board, Right of the Child, Member of the Moscow Helsinki Group Source: Moscow Helsinki Group The announced theme of my speech is ‘The protection of social rights and its link with civic rights.’ The link between these two areas of human rights work is self-evident. It is enough to glance at neighbouring Finland, a country that has put into effect the reforms of the emperor Alexander II: independent courts, free and fair elections, and a system of local government obliging the authorities to take into account the interests of the local residents. The result is a country that, with almost no natural resources whatsoever, is a world leader in terms of standard of living and the social protection of its citizens. I would add that a Finnish police officer would never understand our classic joke about the militiaman who doesn’t need a salary: ‘They gave me a pistol, they gave me a peaked cap – the rest I’ll do myself.’ We – at the NGO Right of the Child – are literally buried under an avalanche of desperate pleas for help from families with children: ‘Nowhere to live’, ‘Nothing to feed the children with’. And questions arise: ‘Why in a country that, in terms of natural resources, is the richest in the world, do millions of children regularly go hungry?’ ‘Why do children have nowhere to live in the largest country in the world?’ (the latter question was the heading of the statement Liudmila Mikhailovna Alekseeva and I put out in April 2015). On 25 April this year in Novaya gazeta I published an article entitled ‘Whoever decided to ‘deal with’ NGOs has also ‘dealt with’ Russia’ [«Кто “заказал” НКО, тот “заказал” и Россию»], the main idea of which was that the attack in the manner of the ‘intelligence services’ on active human rights organizations was organized by the same corrupt, monopolistic monolith which you can say is either in power or consorts with those in power, and which is robbing the country, in other words suffocating Russia and Russian citizens by pushing up the prices on new-build residential buildings, on food and essential items, and at the same time ruthlessly suppresses the socially important small and medium sized business, not to say any competitive economic initiative. At Right of the Child we work with large-scale associations of farmers, of construction workers, and we know about the truly effective proposals these people have to overcome these monopolies, and by the same token engage a huge mass of currently inactive Russians. We know that these proposals have lain neglected for years on the desks of government, and we clearly see how impenetrable this same corrupt and monopolistic monolith is. It is well known that free economic initiative, free market competition, are the basis of any democracy. The basic truth of market economy lies in the fact that a free market itself is unstable and always and everywhere requires strict government protection from monopolisation and the collusion of cartels. This government protection of the competitive market formed the basis of the well-known ‘economic miracles’ of post-war Japan, Germany and Singapore and so forth. There has been nothing similar in the New Russia over the 25 years since its creation. The assertion, popular among our ‘market-reformers’, that ‘the market will itself put everything in its place’ is, as Talleyrand said, ‘worse than a crime, it is a mistake’. It has to be admitted that in questions of anti-monopoly and anti-corruption policy the Russian government is a dwarf, a homunculus, in comparison with the governments of the United States of America or, for example, Finland, that I mentioned earlier. Paradoxically, Russian liberal economists and opposition politicians have never talked, and never talk, about the need to strengthen the anti-monopoly functions of government, not least as a measure of first necessity to overcome mass poverty among the population, despite the fact that we have regularly brought this issue up with them. One of the tragic consequences of this ‘error’ has been the dead-end of democracy-building in which the Russian Federation now finds itself. It is impossible to build a state that observes civil rights in practice, and not on paper, if social rights, that determine the quality of life for millions, are ignored. I suggest that it is precisely because of this that the Western programmes of ‘democracy building’ have been unsuccessful, in essence failed completely. They have been carried out in the conditions of total corruption and monopolism that formed on the territory of the former USSR after its collapse, conditions that have been unbearable for the population. After all, what we are talking about took place not only in Russia. The same situation exists in Ukraine, and in all other countries of the former Soviet Union. International treaty-based obligations in the sphere of combatting corruption and monopolies could have been the main support. In August 2015 the founders of the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) Yury Orlov and Liudmila Alekseeva, along with the majority of other members of MHG, called on the OSCE to work out and adopt one more ‘basket’ of obligations for the States participating in the Helsinki process in the sphere of social rights (see link in the addendum). Since this appeal went unanswered, in November 2015 Liudmila Mikhailovna Alekseeva and I wrote to the German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier (since Germany was to be chair of the OSCE in 2016) with a proposal to work together to develop effective measures to overcome corruption and the growth of monopolies. Again there was no answer. Over the last two months I have written three letters on the same issue to the Special Representative of the Federal Government of Germany for the OSCE, member of the Bundestag Gernot Erler. There has been NO response to any of these appeals! It is plain that ‘real politicians’ in the West as in Russia, in fact everywhere, are the same. In this sense the situation today is fundamentally different from that of 1970-80 when by some miracle it was possible to force the ‘real politicians’ of the West to speak out in defence of the rights of specific individuals who fell victim to the totalitarian system. Andrei Sakharov, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech of 1975, spoke out about the fundamental importance and effectiveness of such an approach. It was on this basis that, at the initiative of Yury Orlov and other Soviet human rights activists, the international Helsinki movement was born. And this proved to be extraordinarily effective. Indeed, it was thanks to sympathy of this kind for the plight of specific individuals that the ‘Cold War’ ended, and humanity took a step back from the brink of thermonuclear war. How we lacking we are in that kind of sympathy today! There have been human rights defenders in the past, they are here today, and there will be in the future. But in the matter of saving specific, concrete individuals and families with children, we are catastrophically lacking in political support. And do what we may, we seem unable to get this support either in Russia or in the West. Addendum Internet links on the issues raised in my speech: 1. 06.08.2015. Yury Orlov, Liudmila Alekseeva and a majority of members of Moscow Helsinki Group, ‘Violations of social rights are a threat to interantional peace’ (in Russian and English): 2. 25.08.2015. Boris Altshuler, speech at MHG conference ‘New “Basket” as Remedy against Appalling World Instability’ (in Russian, in English) 3. 08.02.2016. Boris Altshuler, ‘Global Security, Sustainable Development and Social Rights: recipes for human rights from Moscow’ (in Russian, in English) 4. 22.05.2016. Boris Altshuler, ‘The Борис Альтшулер, ‘The elderly are put to death, and then eaten’ (in Russian). 5. 21.05.2016. Boris Altshuler – on the 95th anniversary of the birth of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (in Russian here and here) |
Memorial Human Rights Centre: List of Political Prisoners as of 9 May 2016
 Source: Memorial Human Rights Centre List of individuals recognised as political prisoners by the Memorial Human Rights Centre as of 9 May 2016 We consider political prisoners to be individuals who are serving a prison sentence, as well as those held in custody or under house arrest as a form of pre-trial detention. The full criteria for considering persons to be political prisoners are published on our website: http://memohrc.org/specials/who-are-political-prisoners. There are 87 individuals named in the list we publish today. This list is far from complete. It includes only those individuals and cases for which we have managed to collect and analyse sufficient information for a convincing conclusion to be drawn about the politically-motivated and illegal nature of a criminal prosecution. At the present time the list does not contain the names of a large number of people who have been deprived of their liberty, and whose prosecution contains indications of illegality or political motivation, but for whose cases we have either not yet received the required information, or have not yet fully analyzed the information. Since the publication of the previous list on 30 October 2015, 8 political prisoners have been released. These are three individuals convicted in the course of the Bolotnaya Square prosecutions (Andrei Barabanov, Denis Lutskevich and Aleksandr Margolin [http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda), the last political prisoner convicted in connection with the rioting on Manezh Square in 2010 (Igor Bereziuk [http://memohrc.org/special-projects/manezhnoe-delo-0]), an environmental activist (Evgeny Vitishko (http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-vitishko]), an ex-major in the Ministry of Internal Affairs who fought against corruption within the Ministry (Igor Matveev [http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-matveeva]), a climber convicted in connection with painting the stars on top of one of Moscow’s highest buildings in 2014 (Vladimir Podrezov [http://memohrc.org/special-projects/vysotnoe-delo]), and the last of three Muslims convicted on charges of blowing up a gas pipeline in Bugulma who served a 10.5 year sentence (Fanis Shaikhutdinov (http://memohrc.org/special-projects/bugulminskoe-delo]). Only three of those released were freed before serving the full term of their sentence in prison: A. Margolin was released on parole; E. Vitishko and V. Podrezov were released from prison but had certain restrictions imposed on their liberty. During this same period, 45 new names were added to the list. The new political prisoners represent a very wide range of groups that have become victims of political repression by the State. The ‘Ukrainian trail’ can be clearly traced in the cases of the Crimean Tatars Akhtem Chiygoz, Ali Asanov and Mustafa Degermendzhi, the Ukrainian citizens Stanislav Klykh, Nikolai Karpiuk and Sergei Litvinov, and the cases of A. Bubeev, D. Poliudova and E. Sharina that are linked to the authorities’ anti-Ukrainian campaign. As previously, one of the most important goals of politically-motivated incarceration remains restriction of the right of assembly. In place of three Bolotnaya Square defendants who were released, two new defendants are now behind bars: Dmitry Buchenkov and Maksim Panfilov. S. Akhmetov and D. Poliudova have also been deprived of their liberty on the basis of charges of taking part in public events. The attack on freedom of expression and the dissemination of information continues, in particular in relation to the Internet: among those who have been put behind bars for trying to exercise this right are A. Bubeev, D. Poliudova, A. Dilmukhametov, R. Zagreev and N. Sharina. The means of unlawful repression provide an instrument for suppressing any kinds of civic activity that are displeasing to the authorities. For example, victims have included I. Barylyak who defended housing rights and S. Nikiforov, who sought to protect environmental rights. Perhaps the most widespread repressions have been seen with regard to Muslims who peacefully sought to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and association, especially those charged with membership of the organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami, banned in Russia as a terrorist organization. In the past 6 months alone, on these grounds 27 individuals have been added to the list of political prisoners, and this group of victims of political repression is the least fully represented on the list. A total of 95 individuals have figured on our lists of political prisoners during this period. Their prosecution has been conducted on the basis of dozens of different articles of the Russian Criminal Code. 1. Afanasyev, Gennady Sergeyevich, was born on 8 November1990. He is a graduate of the law faculty of the Taurida National University and worked as a photographer at the Stock Photography Studio. In March-April 2014 he attended demonstrations and rallies of supporters of a united Ukraine and participated in organising first aid courses. He was sentenced to seven years in a strict-regime colony on charges under Art. 205.4, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participating in a terrorist group’), two incidents under Art. 205, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘A terrorist act committed by an organised group’), Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 205, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘Preparing a terrorist act’), Art. 30, part 3, in conjunction with Art. 222, part 3, (‘Attempting to illegally acquire weapons or explosive devices’). He has been held in custody since 9 May 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/afanasev-gennadiy-sergeevich 2. Akhmetov, Radik Mudarisovich, was born on 18 September 1997. A resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan, at the time of his arrest he was temporarily unemployed. He was charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation to undertake actions aimed at the violent change of the constitutional order’) as a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami organization, banned in Russia. However, even according to the prosecution, Akhmetov did not take part in any violent actions. He has been held in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on charges of an alleged crime that had in fact not taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 3. Akhmetov, Sergei Vladimirovich, was born on 1 January 1976. A resident of St Petersburg, he worked as an architect. He has been charged with crimes under Art. 318, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Use of force not dangerous to life or health against a representative of the authorities’) during a public gathering in support of Aleksei Navalny and Petr Ofitserov in Moscow on 18 July 2013. He has been held in custody since 22 November 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is based on charges of an alleged crime that had in fact not taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportioniate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ahmetov-sergey-vladimirovich 4. Akhmetshin, Fanis Faritovich, was born on 2 February 1963. A construction foreman, he is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He has been charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activity of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 2, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation to undertake actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, and the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami, an organization banned in Russia. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Akhmetshin did not take part in any acts of violence. He has been held in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 5. Asanov, Ali Akhmedovich, was born on 7 July 1982. He is a resident of Urozhayne village in Crimea. Asanov has a higher education degree and is married with two preteen children. Prior to his arrest, Asanov worked as a sales representative. He has Russian and Ukrainian citizenships. Ali is accused of crimes under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’). He has been held in custody since 15 April 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/asanov-ali-ahmedovich 6. Bagavutdinova, Zarema Ziyavtudinovna, was born on 18 September 1968. A member of the Dagestani NGO ‘Pravozashchita’, she was sentenced to five years in a general-regime penal colony on a charge of committing a crime under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Inciting persons to commit a crime under Art. 208 of the Russian Criminal Code’). Bagavutdinova has been in custody since 4 June 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that her prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of her right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-bagavutdinovoy 7. Barabash, Kirill Vladimirovich, was born on 21 January 1977. Barabash is a retired Air Force lieutenant-colonel. He is charged with committing a crime under Art. 282, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’), allegedly continuing, after a 2010 ban on the inter-regional public movement ‘Army of the People’s Will’ ‘in connection with the implementation of extremist activity,’ to organise the activity of the movement in the form of the Initiative Group for the Holding of a Referendum ‘For a responsible government’. He has been held in custody since 17 December 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent exercise of his right to freedom of expression, on a charge of an offence that did not take place, with violation of his right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-igpr-zov 8. Barylyak, Ivan Mihailovich, was born on 19 February 1986. A resident of Stavropol, Baryilyak worked as a locksmith while studying law extramurally. He has been sentenced to three years 6 months in a strict-regime penal colony on a charge of crimes under Art. 213, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Hooliganism’), Art. 116, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘Battery’), and Art. 115, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘Intentional Infliction of Minor Injury’). Ivan was held in custody from 10 September 2014 until 24 December 2014, then under house arrest from 24 December 2014 until 31 August 2015. He has been in prison since the verdict on 31 August 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on grounds of violation of his right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-barylyaka 9. Bazarbayev, Marat Tukmurzayevich, was born on 9 April 1976. He is a member of the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. Despite the fact that the prosecution accepted that Bazarbayev did not take part in any acts of violence, he was sentenced to six years in a strict-regime colony with a further one year of restricted freedom and a fine of 150,000 roubles on charges of crimes under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement and other involvement of people in committing a crime envisaged under Art. 278’), Art. 30, part 1, (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 2, (‘Participating in the activity of an extremist organisation) . He has been held in custody since 31 July 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and with a disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chelyabinskoe-delo 10. Bobyshev, Syatoslav Vasilievich, was born on 9 August 1953. A professor at the D. F. Ustinov Baltic State Technical University (Voenmekh), he was charged with crimes under Art. 275 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Treason’). On 20 June 2012 he was sentenced by St Petersburg City Court to 12 years in a strict-regime penal colony for allegedly passing China information about the Bulava rocket complex. He had been held in custody since 16 March 2010. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-bobysheva 11. Bubeev, Andrei Borisovich, was born on 11 December 1975 in Tver, where he resides. He has a higher education, is married with two young children, and is temporarily unemployed. Taking into account time not served for an earlier offence, he was sentenced to two years and three months in a low-security penal colony under Art. 280, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement of extremist activity committed using social media networks’) and under Art. 280.1, part 2, (‘Public incitement to actions directed towards the violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, committed using means of mass communication or electronic or social media networks’). Earlier he had been sentenced to one year in a low-security penal colony under Art. 282, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Inciting hatred or enmity; or degrading human dignity) and Art. 222, part 1, (‘Unlawful acquisition, transfer, sale, possession, transport or carrying of ammunition’). He has been in custody since 24 May 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was based on am alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of his right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/bubeev-andrey-borisovich 12. Buchenkov, Dmitry Evgenevich, was born in 1978. Buchenkov has a PhD in Political Science. Prior to his arrest, he was employed as deputy head of the department of History of Medicine and the Social Sciences and Humanities at Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. He is an anarchist and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Moskovskaya elektrichka. Dmitry is accused of crimes envisaged under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1, (‘Use of Violence Against a Representative of Authority’) in the Bolotnaya case. Buchenkov was taken into custody on 2 December 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution has been based on an offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 13. Chiygoz, Akhtem Zeytullaevich, was born on 14 December 1964. A resident of Bakhchysarai, Chiygoz has a higher education degree and is single. The closing indictment states that Akhtem has two citizenships (Russian Federation and Ukraine). Chiygoz is accused of crimes under Art. 212, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organization of riots’). He was taken into custody on 29 January 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution is based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chiygoz-ahtem-zeytullaevich 14. Dadin, Ildar Ildusovich, was born on 14 April 1982. He is a resident of Moscow Region. Dadin is a civil society activist. He was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment in a general-regime colony on charges under Art. 212.1 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Multiple violations of the established procedure for organising or holding gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets’). Dadin was under house arrest from 3 February 2015. He was taken into custody on 3 December 2015 after the verdict. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent use of his right to freedom of assembly, on a charge of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-dadina 15. Degermendzhi, Mustafa Bekirovich, was born on 22 May 1989. He is a resident of Sudak and is single. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a sales representative. Degermendzhi has two citizenships (Russia and Ukraine). He is accused of crimes under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’). He has been in custody since 7 May 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution is based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/degermendzhi-mustafa-bekirovich 16. Dil’mukhametov, Airat Akhnafovich, was born on 21 June 1966. A resident of Ufa in the Republic of Bashkortostan, he works as a journalist. He was sentenced to three years in a strict-regime penal colony on charges under Art. 205.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement to acts of terrorism’) and deprived of the right to work as a journalist for two years after release. Dil’mukhametov was under house arrest from 17 July 2013 until 16 January 2014. He has been held in custody since 12 March 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent exercise of the right to freedom of expression, on charges of an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/dilmuhametov-ayrat-ahnafovich 17. Faizrakhmanov, Danis Mirratovich, was born on 4 September 1988. He is a builder by profession, and a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He has been charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of activities directed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of a banned organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This has taken place despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Faizrakhmanov has not taken part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted with respect to an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 18. Fattakhov, Rafael Raulevich, was born on 25 May 1980. A painter and decorator by profession, he is a resident in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated by Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of actions directed towards the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Fattakhov has taken no part in acts pf violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is based on an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 19. Fattakhov, Ruslan Vakilevich, was born on 14 November 1980. A private businessman engaged in trading, he is resident in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated under Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Fattakhov has taken no part in acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was based on an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 20. Fazylov, Aramis Fanisovich, was born on 21 July 1991. He has worked in marketing and is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated under Russian law as terrorist’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Fazylov has taken no part in acts of violence. He has been under house arrest and has been deprived of liberty since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution has been based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 21. Galiullin, Rinat Faizullovich, was born on 25 June 1978. He is a member of the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. Galiullin did not take part in any acts of violence, a fact accepted by the prosecution. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months in a strict-regime colony with one further year of restricted freedom and a fine of 150,000 roubles on charges under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement and other involvement of people in committing a crime envisaged under Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code’), Art. 30, part 1, (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or a change by violence of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 2, (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’). He has been held in custody since 31 July 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in connection with an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chelyabinskoe-delo 22. Gallyamov, Rustem Ravilevich, was born on 10 August 1981. He is director of the company Eko-Svetstroi and a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated by Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of actions directed towards the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Gallyamov has not taken part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 23. Garifyanov, Aidar Ralifovich, was born in 1976. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Garifyanov was sentenced to six years in a strict-regime colony on a charge of involvement in the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 1, (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’). He has been held in custody since 26 August 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in connection with an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo 24. Gaskarov, Aleksei Vladimirovich, was born in 1985. He has worked as an employee of a consulting company, and is an anarchist and anti-fascist. Gaskarov was a member of the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. He was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment in a general-regime colony on the charge of a crime under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1, (‘Use of Violence Against a Representative of Authority’) in the Bolotnaya case. The charges were laid on 29 April 2013. He has been in custody since 28 April 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent use of his right to freedom of assembly, on a charge of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 25. Gataullin, Rishat Razitovich, was born on 14 April 1972. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated by Russian law as terrorist’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Gataullin did not take part in any acts of violence. He is under house arrest, and has been deprived of liberty since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is based on charges of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 26. Gimaletdinov, Il’giz Failovich, was born on 18 November 1988. He has worked as a manager at SrubMontazh, and is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He has been charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated under Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Gimaletdinov has not taken part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 27. Idelbayev, Rinat Vadimovich, was born on 27 December 1980. He was a member of the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. Idelbayev did not take part in any acts of violence, something accepted by the prosecution. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to six years in a strict-regime penal colony with one further year of restricted freedom and a fine of 150,000 roubles on charges of crimes under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement and other involvement of people in committing a crime under Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code’), Art. 30, part 1, (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 2, (‘Participating in the activity of an extremist organisation). He has been in custody since 31 July 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in connection with an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chelyabinskoe-delo 28. Inamov, Azizbek Khalikovich, was born on 9 April 1977 in Kyrgyzstan. He is a Russian citizen and a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. The prosecution accepts that Inamov has not taken part in any acts of violence. Nevertheless, he was found guilty under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organization of activities of an extremist organization’), Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’), Art. 205.1, part 1, (‘Persuading people to commit crimes under Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code’). He was sentenced to 11 years in a strict-regime penal colony and fined 200,000 roubles. He was taken into custody on 7 November 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trail and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. 29. Ismailov, Shamil Magomedrasulovich, was born on 20 October 1973 in Makhachkala, where he lived. He worked as a medical doctor and was a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami. According to the prosecution, he did not take part in any acts of violence. Nevertheless, he was convicted under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organization of the activity of an extremist organization’), and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’). He was sentenced to 8 years in a strict-regime penal colony, with a further two-year restriction on his freedom, and fined 100,000 roubles. He has been held in custody since 13 June 2013. Recognized a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. 30. Ishevsky, Dmitry Vyacheslavovich, was born in 1983. He is a retired officer in the Russian armed forces. Ishevsky was sentenced to three years and two months of imprisonment in a general-regime colony on the charge of crimes under Art.212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1, (‘Use of violence against a representative of authority’) in the Bolotnaya case. The charges were formally laid on 27 May 2014, from which date he was held in custody. Recognized as a political prisoner since his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent use of his right to freedom of assembly, on the charge of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 31. Izokaitis, Anton Alvidovich, was born on 30 November 1987. He is a resident of Staraya Russ town in Nizhny Novgorod Region. Izokaitis was sentenced to two years in prison in a low security penal colony on charges under Art. 205.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement of terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism’) and Art. 282, part 1, (‘Incitement of hatred or enmity, and degrading human dignity’). He has been held in custody since July 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/izokaytis-anton-alvidovich 32. Kaiumov, Azamat Rinatovich, was born on 30 September 1982. He had worked repairing washing machines for a living and is a resident in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization designated under Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparation of actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. However, the prosecution accepts that Kaiumov has not taken part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and with disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 33. Karpiuk, Nikolai Andronovich, was born on 21 May 1964. He is a citizen of Ukraine. At the time of his arrest he was one of the leaders of Right Sector (a banned organisation in Russia). Karpiuk is accused of crimes under Art. 209, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Creating a permanent armed group [gang] with the aim of attacking citizens and organisations, and leading such a group [gang]’), Art. 102, points ‘v’, ‘z’ and ‘n’, (‘Intentional murder of two or more people in connection with the conduct of their professional duties, committed by preliminary agreement by a group of people’), and Art. 15, part 2, in conjunction with Art. 102, points ‘v’, ‘z’ and ‘n’, (‘Attempted premeditated murder of two or more people in connection with the conduct of their professional duties, committed by preliminary agreement by a group of people’). He has been in custody since 21 March 2014 (actually not at liberty since 17 March 2014). Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/karpyuk-nikolay-andronovich 34. Kashapov, Rafis Rafailovich, was born on 2 July 1958. At the time of his arrest he lived in the town of Naberezhnye Chelny and was chair of the Naberezhnye Chelny branch of the Tatar Public Centre. He is accused of committing a crime under Art. 282, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement of hatred or enmity, thereby degrading human dignity’). He has been in custody since 28 December 2014, awaiting trial. Recognized as a political prisoner since his prosecution is being conducted in connection with an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-kashapova 35. Kazikhanov, Bagir Kurbanovich, was born on 9 September 1983. At the moment of his arrest he was living in Ulyanovsk. Not officially employed, he worked at a vegetable depot in Ulyanovsk. He is a Muslim. Kazikhanov was sentenced to three years and six months in a general-regime penal colony on a charge under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising the activity of a banned religious society’). He is charged with creating a cell of the religious society ‘Nurdzhular’ (banned in Russia) by way of studying the Turkish theologian Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. From 10 April to 24 October 2014 he was in a pre-trial detention centre, then until 25 February 2015 he was held under house arrest. After that he was taken into custody. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that in fact did not take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-kazihanova 36. Khamadeyev, Aleksei Alfritovich, was born in 1982. He was a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan at the time of his arrest. Khamadayev was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime penal colony on a charge of involvement in the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) and Art. 282.2, part 1, (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’). He has been in custody since 26 August 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with a violation of his right to fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo 37. Khamzin, Rutsem Valeryevich, was born on 6 April 1972. A businessman, he lived in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in the activities of an organization that has been designated under Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This has been despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Khamzin has not taken part in any acts of violence. He has been in pre-trial detention since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, taking into account the crime of which he has been accused. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 38. Kharebava, Ekaterina Zhorzhievna, was born in 1969. She is an accountant by education, and resided in the town of Sochi since the 1990s. Kharebava was working as a market vendor at the time of her arrest in 2013. On 14 November 2014 she was sentenced to six years in a general-regime penal colony on a charge of a crime under Art. 276 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Espionage’). She has been in custody since 24 May 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that she was prosecuted for an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of her right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention.http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-ekateriny-harebava 39. Klykh, Stanislav Romanovich, was born on 25 January 1974. He is a citizen of Ukraine, a lecturer at the Kiev Transport and Economic College. Klykh is charged with committing crimes under Art. 209, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participating in a permanent armed group [gang] and in the attacks committed by it’), Art. 102, points ‘v’, ‘z’ and ‘n,’(‘Intentional murder of two or more people in connection with the conduct of their professional duties, committed by preliminary agreement by a group of people’), and Art. 15, pt. 2, in conjunction with Art. 2012, points ‘v’, ‘z’ and ‘n,’ (‘Attempted premediated murder of two or more people in connection with the conduct of their professional duties, committed by preliminary agreement by a group of people’). He was taken into custody by a court decision on 22 August 2014 (but in fact not at liberty since 8 August 2014). Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/klyh-stanislav-romanovich 40. Kolchenko, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, was born on 26 November 1989. Kolchenko is an anti-fascist who fell victim to an attack by ultra-rightists. He worked as a loader at the post office and a print shop, while taking a degree-level correspondence in geography. Kolchenko was sentenced to 10 years in a strict-regime penal colony under Art. 205.4, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘A terrorist act committed by an organised group’). He has been held in custody since 16 May 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/kolchenko-aleksandr-aleksandrovich 41. Kornev, Aleksandr Valeryevich, was born on 22 September 1987. He is a member of staff at the Institute for the Development of Education of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated under Russian law as terrorist’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing activities aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Kornev has not taken any part in acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the offence with which he has been charged. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 42. Kostenko, Aleksander Fedorovich, was born on 10 March 1986. He is a former employee of the Kiev district branch of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the city of Simferopol. Kostenko was sentenced to three years and 11 months imprisonment on a charge of crimes under Art. 115, part 2, point ‘b’, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Deliberate causing of minor harm to health resulting in short-term decline in health, committed for reasons of ideological hatred or enmity’) and Art. 222, part 1, (‘Illegal possession and carrying of a firearm and ammunition’). He has been held in custody since 6 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/kostenko-aleksandr-fedorovich 43. Kravtsov, Gennady Nikolaevich, was born on 30 October 1968. He lives in the city of Moscow and worked as chief designer at an IT company. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison in a strict-regime penal colony on a charge of committing a crime under Art. 275 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Treason’). He has been in custody since 27 May 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted with regard to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-kravcova 44. Krivov, Sergei Vladimirovich, has a PhD in applied science and is a member of the RPR-PARNAS party. Krivov was sentenced to three years and nine months of imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participating in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1, (‘Use of force not dangerous to life or health in relation to a representative of the authorities’) in the Bolotnaya case. The charges were laid on 19 October 2012. He has been in custody since 18 October 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent use of his right to freedom of assembly, on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 45. Kudayev, Rasul Vladimirovich, was born on 23 January 1978. He was living in the village of Khasanya near the city of Nalchik at the time of his arrest. He was charged with crimes under Art. 105, points ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘zh’ and ‘z’, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (‘Murder of two or more persons by generally dangerous means by an organized group for purposes of self-interest related to banditry’), Art. 166, part 4 (‘Unlawful control of motor vehicles without intending to commit theft committed by an organized group by use of force dangerous to life and health, and also with the threat of using such force’), Art. 205, part 3 (‘Terrorist act using firearms committed by an organized group resulting in serious consequences’), Art. 209, part 2 (‘Participation in a band created for the purposes of attacking citizens and organizations, and in the attacks carried out by the band’), Art. 210, part 2 (‘Participation in a criminal group’), Art. 222, part 3 (‘Unlawful acquisition, transfer, possession, transport or carrying of firearms, their principal components, ammunition, explosives and explosive mechanisms committed by an organized group’), Art. 30, part 2 and Art. 226, part 4, points ‘a’ and ‘b’(‘Attempt to steal firearms and ammunition committed by an organized group using force dangerous to life and health, and also with the threat of using such force’), Art. 226, part 4, points ‘a’ and ‘b’ (‘Theft of firearms and ammunition committed by an organized group by using force dangerous to life and health, and also with the threat of using such force’), Art. 279 (‘Active participation in an armed mutiny with the aim of changing by violence the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, or violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation’), and Art. 317 (‘Attempt on the life of law enforcement officers or military service personnel’). Kudayev was sentenced on 21 December 2014 to life imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony. He had been held in custody since 2 October 2005 in connection with his supposed participation in an attack on Nalchik on 13 October 2005. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that had in fact been committed by another person, with violation of his right to a fair trial.http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-kudaeva 46. Kulagin, Yevgeny Viktorovich, was born in 1981. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Kulagin was sentenced on a charge of involvement in the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force in the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 1 (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’) to seven years in a strict-regime penal colony. He has been in custody since 26 August 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo 47. Kurbanov, Saipula Dzhabrailovich, was born on 9 April 1980 in Makhachkala, where he lived. He worked as general director of a dentistry clinic, EstDental, and was a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami. The prosecution accepted that Kurbanov did not take part in any violent actions. Nonetheless, he was found guilty under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organizing the activities of a banned organization’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation’). He was sentenced to 8 years in a strict-regime penal colony to be followed by two years of restricted liberty and a fine of 150,000 roubles. He has been in custody since 7 November 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the offence with which he had been charged. 48. Kutayev, Ruslan Makhamdiyevich, was born on 20 September 1957. A Chechen civil society activist, he has a PhD in philosophy. Kutayev was sentenced to three years and 10 months of imprisonment in a general-regime colony on a charge of committing a crime under Art. 228, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Illegal possession or transport without the aim of selling narcotic substances in large quantity’) in a fabricated case after holding a conference, entitled ‘The deportation of the Chechen people: What was it and can it be forgotten?’, without permission from the authorities of the Chechen Republic. He has been in custody since 20 February 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on charges of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-kutaeva 49. Latypov, Rustem Maratovich, was born on 17 February 1976. He is head of the human rights organization, Centre for Research into Problems of Muslims, and a member of the Public Oversight Commission of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Latypov has been charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is in spite of the fact that the prosecution accepts Latypov did not take part in any acts of violence. He has been held in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 50. Litvinov, Sergei Nikolaevich, was born on 9 March 1983 in the village of Rastsvet in the Stanichno-Lugansk district of the Lugansk region of Ukraine. He lived in the village of Kamyshnoe in the same district. A citizen of Ukraine, he has an incomplete secondary education, and according to his wife is almost illiterate. Litvinov was not conscripted into the army on grounds of ill health. According to the charges laid against him, he is not officially working, is not married and has no children. However, according to media reports, he is married and is bringing up a 14-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to 8.5 years in a strict-regime penal colony under Art. 162, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Robbery, involving illegal entry to a residence, premises or other place of safekeeping of large or small size’). Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that the prosecution was conducted with violation of the right to fair trial. 51. Maksutov, Radmir Iusifovich, was born on 31 March 1984. He worked as a domestic appliance repairer and is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law') and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the violent change of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Maksutov did not take part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 52. Mamaev, Rinat Mazitovich, was born on 25 July 1971. He is a manager and lives in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) as a member of the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami organization, despite the fact that according to the prosecution he had not taken part in acts of violence. He has been under house arrest and deprived of liberty since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution has been conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 53. Mukhin, Yury Ignatievich, was born on 22 March 1949. He is a pensioner and has worked as a journalist and formerly was editor-in-chief of the Duel newspaper. Mukhin is charged with committing a crime under Art. 282.2, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’), allegedly continuing after a ban in 2010 on the inter-regional public movement ‘Army of People’s Will’ ‘in connection with the conducting of extremist activity’ to organise the activity of the movement in the form of the Initiative Group for the Holding of a Referendum ‘For a responsible government’. He has been in custody since 28 July 2015, and since 19 August 2015 has been under house arrest. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent exercise of his right to free expression of his opinion, on a charge of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-igpr-zov 54. Mustafaev, Farid Ramazanovich, was born on 8 July 1987. He worked in the transport business and lived in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the violent change of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami, despite the fact that the prosecution accepted that he had not taken part in acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with a violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 55. Mustafin, Khalil Fanavievich, was born on 18 August 1984. He is a champion of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia and the world in Eastern single combat, and a skilled household appliance repairer. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the violent change of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb-ut Tahrir al-Islami, despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that he had not taken part in acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution has been based on an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 56. Nasyrov, Vadim Gayfullayevich was born on 17 February 1981. He is a member of the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. The prosecution accepted that Nasyrov did not take part in acts of violence. Nonetheless, he was convicted under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement and other involvement of people in committing a crime under Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code’), Art. 30, part 1 (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 2 (‘Participating in the activity of an extremist organisation) and sentenced to six years in a strict-regime penal colony with a further one year of restricted freedom and a fine of 150,000 roubles. He has been in custody since 31 July 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chelyabinskoe-delo 57. Navalny, Oleg Anatolyevich was born in 1983. He is the brother of Aleksei Navalny, and a former employee of the Federal Russian Post Office. Oleg Navalny was convicted on 30 December 2014 in the Yves Rocher case under Art. 159, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Large scale embezzlement’), Art. 159.4, part 3 (‘Large scale embezzlement in the sphere of business activity’), and Art. 174.1, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘Legalisation of financial resources acquired by a person as a result of a large scale crime committed by him’). He was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment in a general-regime colony and a fine of 500,000 roubles. He was in custody from 30 December 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/pochtovoe-delo 58. Nepomnyashchikh, Ivan Andreyevich, was born in 1990. He worked as a design engineer at the Rodina Scientific-Production Association, and is a resident of the town of Sergiyev Posad in Moscow Region. Nepomnyashchikh was charged with crimes under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Participation in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1 (‘Use of force not dangerous to life or health in relation to a representative of the authorities’). On 26 February 2015 the Basmanny district court in Moscow placed him under house arrest until 6 April 2015. He was formally charged on 2 March 2015. He has been in custody since 25 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent use of his right to free assembly, on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 59. Nikiforov, Sergei Savelevich, was born on 31 October 1968. Nikiforov lives in Ivanovskoye in Amurskaya Region. He is married with five foster children. Nikiforov is a leader of the Evenk community. Initially, Nikiforov was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime penal colony, a fine of 16 million roubles and a further prohibition on holding official positions in local self-government bodies for 2.5 years. He was found guilty of crimes under Art. 290, part 5, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (‘Accepting a large-scale bribe’) and Art. 285, part 2 (‘The use by the head of local government of official powers against the interests of the service for mercenary or other personal interest’). Later the sentence was reduced to 4 years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime penal colony, a fine of 3 million roubles and a prohibition on holding official positions in local self-government bodies for a further two years. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds of a violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/nikiforov-sergey-savelevich 60. Nurlygayanov, Rinat Ranifovich, was born on 3 January 1991. He is a student of the Russian Islamic University and a refrigerator repairer who lives in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Nurlygayanov did not take part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that he is being prosecuted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 61. Osipova, Taisiya Vitalyevna was born on 26 August 1984. She is a political activist who lives in the city of Smolensk. Osipova is a victim of persecution by law-enforcement bodies as a result of her membership of the organisation The Other Russia. Osipova was convicted on 29 December 2011 under Art. 228.1, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Illegal manufacture, sale or transport of narcotic substances in particularly large quantities’) by Judge Y. N. Dvoryanchikov, sitting in the Zadneprovsky district court in Smolensk. She was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. On 15 February 2012 her sentence was quashed by Smolensk Region court, and the case was sent for review. On 28 August 2012 she was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, although the prosecutor had asked for four years. She has been in custody since 23 November 2010. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that her prosecution was conducted with violation of her right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-osipovoy 62. Parfenov, Valery Nikolaevich, was born on 3 August 1974. A resident of Moscow, he worked as a systems administrator in the Moscow Unified Energy Company. Parfenov is charged with an offence under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’), allegedly continuing after a ban in 2010 on the inter-regional public movement ‘Army of People’s Will’ ‘in connection with the conducting of extremist activity’ to organise the activity of the movement in the form of the Initiative Group for the Holding of a Referendum ‘For a responsible government’. Parfenov has been in custody since 28 July 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent exercise of his right to free expression of his opinion, in relation to an offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-igpr-zov 63. Panfilov, Maksim Alekseevich, was born in 1985. He is a resident of Astrakhan and suffers from a neurological health condition. At the time of his detention, he was not working. He has been charged under Art. 212, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in riots’) and Art. 318, part 1 (‘Use of force not dangerous to health or life against a representative of the authorities’) in the framework of the Bolotnaya Square prosecutions. He has been held in custody since 7 April 2016. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention in relation to the alleged offence. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-o-sobytiyah-na-bolotnoy-ploshchadi-6-maya-2012-goda 64. Parpulov, Petr Ivanovich, was born in 1955 at Khanskaya village in Krasnodar Region. An air traffic control officer, since the 1980s he has worked at the civilian airport in Sochi, where he was working at the time of his detention in 2014, despite the fact that he had already reached pensionable age. Parpulov was found guilty under Art. 275 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Treason’) and sentenced to 12 years in a strict-regime penal colony. He had been in custody since 4 March 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial. 65. Pichugin, Aleksei Vladimirovich, was born on 25 July 1962. He is the former head of the department of internal economic security for the Yukos oil company. Two guilty verdicts have been handed down against him, in 2005 and 2007, under Art. 162 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Robbery’) and Art. 105 (‘Murder’). He was sentenced to life imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony. During the investigation and trials multiple violations were noted which allow us to assert that Pichugin’s guilt was not proven, and that the evidence on which the verdicts were based was falsified. Pichugin has been in custody since 19 June 2003. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-pichugina 66. Poliudova, Darya Vladimirovna, was born on 4 February 1989 in the town of Kuvasai in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. At the time of her arrest, she was living in Krasnodar and was a Left Front activist. On 21 December 2015 she was sentenced to two years in a low security penal colony under Art. 280, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement to carry out extremist activity’), Art. 280, part 2 (‘Public incitement to carry out extremist activity committed by using the Internet’), Art. 280.1, part 2 (‘Public incitement to carry out actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation’) in connection with her participation in the preparation of a ‘March for the Federalization of the Kuban’ that did not take place. The sentence entered into force on 30 March 2016. On 20 April 2016 Poliudova independently arrived at her place of detention. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that her prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against her. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/polyudova-darya-vladimirovna 67. Rakhmonkhodzhaev, Zikrullokhon Faizullokhodzhaevich, was born on 2 October 1975 in Tajikistan. A resident and citizen of Tajikistan, he is a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. He was found guilty under Art. 282.2, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an extremist organization’), Art. 30, part 1, and Art. 278 (‘Preparation to seize power by violence or to change by force the constitutional order of the Russian Federation), Art. 222, part 1 (‘Illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, possession, transport or carrying of firearms, their main component parts or ammunition’). Rakhmonkhodzhaev was sentenced to 7 years in a strict-regime penal colony and a fine of 50,000 roubles. He has been in custody since 7 November 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. 68. Razvozzhayev, Leonid Mikhailovich, was born on 12 June 1973. Razvozzhayev was a member of the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. After a screening on NTV of the propaganda film ‘Anatomy of a Protest-2’, Razvozzhayev was sentenced under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 212 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Preparing to organise riots’) and Art. 212, part 1 (‘Organising riots’) to four years and 6 months of imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony and a fine of 150,000 roubles. He has been in custody since 19 October 2012, when he was abducted on the territory of Ukraine. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-anatomii-protesta-2 69. Reznik, Sergei Eduardovich, was born on 10 April 1976, a deputy director for public relations of the Rostov branch of the company ASK-Plus, as well as a journalist and blogger. He has been found guilty in two trials, the first on 26 November 2013 under Art. 204, part 2, point ‘b’ of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Commercial payments, committed for the purpose of illegal activity’), Art. 306, part 3 (‘Deliberate false testimony about the commission of a crime, or the artificial creation of evidence of guilt’), and Art. 319 (‘Insulting a representative of the authorities’); and the second on 22 January 2015 under Art. 306, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Deliberate false testimony about the commission of a crime, or accusing a person of committing a serious or very serious crime’), and two episodes under Art. 319 (‘Insulting a representative of the authorities’). He has been sentenced to two years and 11 months in a general-regime penal colony with a ban on journalistic activity for a further one year and 10 months. He has been held in custody since 26 November 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with his non-violent use of his right to free expression of his opinion, on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-reznika 70. Salimov, Artur Raulevich, was born on 5 September 1986. An electrician, he lives in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’), and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. However, this is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Salimov did not take part in any acts of violence. Salimov has been held in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 71. Satayev, Rasim Radikovich, was born in 1988. A resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan, he was sentenced to six years and six months in a strict-regime penal colony on a charge of involvement in the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 282.2 (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’). Satayev has been in custody since 26 August 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo 72. Savchenko, Nadezhda Viktorovna, was born on 11 May 1987. A Ukrainian citizen and a resident of Kiev, she serves in the Ukrainian armed forces. Savchenko has de facto been in custody on the territory of Russia since 24 June 2014. She was formally taken into custody on 30 June 2014. On 22 March 2016 she was sentenced to 22 years in a general-regime penal colony and fined 30,000 roubles, on charges under Art. 33, part 5, points ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘zh’ and ‘l,’ in conjunction with Art. 105, part 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Accomplice to the murder of two or more people carried out in a generally dangerous manner by a group of people motivated by political hatred’), and Art. 322, part 1 (‘Illegal crossing of a State border’). Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that her prosecution was conducted with violation of her right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-savchenko 73. Sentsov, Oleg Gennadyevich, was born on 13 July 1976. Sentsov, a film director and producer, lived in Simferopol and was an Automaidan activist. He supported the movement for a united Ukraine in Crimea in February-March 2014. Sentsov was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime penal colony under Art. 205.4, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising a terrorist group’), two episodes under Art. 205, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘A terrorist act committed by an organised group’), Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 205, part 2, point ‘a’ (‘Preparing a terrorist act’), Art. 30, part 3, in conjunction with Art. 222, part 3 (‘Attempted illegal acquisition of a weapon and explosive devices’), and Art. 222, part 3 (‘Illegal acquisition and possession of a weapon and explosive devices’). Sentsov has been in custody since 11 May 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/sencov-oleg-gennadevich 74. Sharina, Natalya Grigoryevna, was born on 13 July 1957. She is a Russian citizen residing in Moscow and director of the government-funded Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow. Sharina is charged with a crime under Art. 282, part 2, point ‘b’, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Inciting hatred or enmity and degrading human dignity, committed by a person with the use of their professional position’) with regard to the presence of publications recognised as extremist in the library’s stock. Sharina is under house arrest while awaiting trial. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that her prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-sharinoy 75. Sharipov, Shamil’ Khazhgalievich, was born on 16 January 1977. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan and worked repairing washing-machines. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’), and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepted Sharipov did not take part in acts of violence. Sharipov has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted on the basis of alleged offences that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, with regard to the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 76. Shishkin, Vitaly Viktorovich, was born on 6 August 1972. He is a Russian citizen and an opposition activist of Russian nationalist persuasion. Shishkin was sentenced to four years in a general-regime penal colony on charges of committing crimes under Art. 212, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Inciting mass riots’) and Art. 282, part 1, (‘Actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity’). Shishkin has been in custody since 13 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent implementation of his right to free expression of his opinion, on a charge of an alleged offence that had not in fact taken place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/shishkin-vitaliy-viktorovich 77. Sokolov, Aleksander Aleksandrovich, was born on 17 November 1987. He is a Muscovite and has a PhD in economics. He was employed as a journalist at RBC. Sokolov is charged with committing a crime under Art. 282.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Organising the activity of an extremist organisation’), supposedly continuing after a ban in 2010 on the inter-regional public movement ‘Army of People’s Will’ ‘in connection with the conducting of extremist activity’ to organise the activity of the movement in the form of the Initiative Group for the Holding of a Referendum ‘For a responsible government’. Sokolov has been in custody since 28 July 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted exclusively in connection with the non-violent implementation of his right to freely express his opinion, on a charge of an alleged offence that in fact did not take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-igpr-zov 78. Sutuga, Aleksei Vladimirovich, was born on 24 January 1986. He is a resident of Moscow and an unskilled worker who took part in the anti-fascist movement and political and environmental civil society initiatives, including as part of the anarchist movement ‘Autonomous Action’. Sutuga was convicted on a charge under Art. 213, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Hooliganism committed by a group of people by prior agreement’). Judge Elena Korobchenko, sitting in the Zamoskvoretsky district court in Moscow, well known for her role as judge in the case of the Navalny brothers, sentenced Sutuga to three years and one month in a general-regime penal colony. Sutuga had been in custody since 5 April 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-alekseya-sutugi 79. Tagirov, Irek Rishatovich, was born on 5 April 1989. He is a sales manager and resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged with offences under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts Tagirov did not take part in any acts of violence. Tagirov has been in detention since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 80. Tikhonov, Leonid Ivanovich, was born on 25 March 1963. At the time of his conviction, he was a resident of the city of Nakhodka in Primorsky Region. Tikhonov worked as a docker at Vostochny Port, and has been the head of the professional committee of the Russian Union of Dockers at the Vostochny Port Joint Stock Company since 2003. On 15 December 2014, Tikhonov was convicted by Judge Maksim Mikhailovich Kiselev sitting in Nakhodka City Court on a charge of a crime under Art. 160, part 3, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Acquisition or spending through the abuse of one’s position of employment, also on a large-scale’). He was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony with a further ban on engaging in trade union activity for three years. He had been taken into custody on 15 December 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-tihonova 81. Tyumentsev, Vadim Viktorovich, was born on 3 December 1980. He lives in Tomsk and is a video blogger and a civil society activist. Tyumentsev is charged with committing crimes under Art. 280, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement of extremism by means of the Internet’) and Art. 282, part 1 (‘Actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, and also at degrading the dignity of a person or group of people by gender, race, ethnicity, language, heritage or relations to religion, or their membership of a social group’). Tyumentsev has been in custody since 28 April 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-tyumenceva 82. Udaltsov, Sergei Stanislavovich, was born on 16 April 1977. Udaltsov was a member of the Coordinating Council of the Opposition and a leader of the Left Front. After the propaganda film ‘Anatomy of a Protest-2’ aired on the NTV channel, Udaltsov was sentenced to four years and 6 months of imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony under Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 212, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Preparing to organise riots’) and Art. 212, part 1 (‘Organising riots’). Udaltsov was under house arrest from 9 February 2013 until being taken into custody on 24 July 2014. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and the disproportionate use of pre-trial detention. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-anatomii-protesta-2 83. Valiyev, Rushat Rashitovich, was born on 8 April 1982. He is a member of the banned organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. Valiyev was sentenced to six years in a strict-regime penal colony, with a further one year of restricted freedom and a fine of 150,000 roubles, on charges of crimes under Art. 205.1, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Incitement and other involvement of people in committing a crime envisaged under Art.278 of the Russian Criminal Code’), Art. 30, part 1 (‘Preparing actions aimed at a violent seizure of power, or the change by force of the constitutional order’), and Art. 282.2, part 2 (‘Participating in the activity of an extremist organisation). Valiyev was convicted despite the fact that the prosecution accepted he did not take part in any acts of violence. He has been in custody since 31 July 2012. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/chelyabinskoe-delo 84. Vakhitov, Linar Munirovich, was born on 25 April 1983. At the time of his detention he was director of the company StroiAlyans and a leader of the human rights organization Movement for the Rights of Muslims. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts he did not take part in any acts of violence. Vakhitov has been in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 85. Yakupov, Ural Gaifullovich, was born on 24 May 1991. He is a resident of the Republic of Bashkortostan and works as a repairer of household appliances. He has been charged under Art. 205.5, part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Taking part in the activities of an organization designated as terrorist under Russian law’) and Art. 30, part 1, in conjunction with Art. 278 (‘Preparing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power or the change by force of the constitutional order’) as a member of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. This is despite the fact that the prosecution accepts that Yakupov did not take part in any acts of violence. Yakupov has been held in custody since 4 February 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted on the basis of an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of the right to fair trial and disproportionate use of pre-trial detention, given the nature of the charges laid against him. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/ufimskoe-delo-dvadcati-shesti 86. Zagreev, Robert Raufanovich, was born on 3 July 1964. He is a resident of the city of Ufa in the Republic of Bashkortostan. He is a journalist and a politician in opposition to the current government. He was sentenced to three years in prison in a strict-regime penal colony on charges of crimes under Art. 205.2, part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Public incitement to acts of terrorism’). Zagreev was under house arrest from 27 April 2015, and in custody from 29 October 2015. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution was conducted exclusively with respect to his peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression of opinion, on a charge of an alleged offence that in fact did not take place, with violation of the right to fair trial. http://memohrc.org/special-projects/zagreev-robert-raufanovich 87. Zhitenev, Igor Anatolievich, was born on 27 April 1967. He is a, former ataman of the National Cultural Autonomy of Cossacks of Novokhopersky district in Voronezh Region, and an activist in the movement ‘In Defence of Khoper’. Zhitenev is charged with committing a crime under Art. 163, part 3, point ‘b’, of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Extortion committed for the purpose of obtaining property on a particularly large scale’). Zhitenev has been in custody since 26 November 2013. Recognized as a political prisoner on the grounds that his prosecution is being conducted in relation to an alleged offence that did not in fact take place, with violation of his right to a fair trial.http://memohrc.org/special-projects/delo-zhiteneva Memorial Human Rights Centre Maly Karetny Pereulok, Building 12 Moscow, Russia, 127051 Tel. +7 (495) 225-3118 Fax +7 (495) 699-1165 E-mail: memhrc@memo.ru Web-site: http://memohrc.org |
Moscow Helsinki Group celebrates 40th anniversary with Moscow conference
 Source: Moscow Helsinki Group On 12th May the oldest of today’s human rights organizations, the Moscow Helsinki Group, was 40 years old. In celebration it held a jubilee conference on 12-14th May in Moscow. Taking part were representatives of human rights organizations, experts, public figures, journalists, members of MHG, and friends. Those who gathered congratulated MHG on its jubilee and spoke of its role and importance both in Soviet times and in today’s Russia but pride of place was given to the discussion of basic problems relating to human rights in the country and the key tasks which face their defenders today. The basic issues discussed by those who participated in the jubilee conference included: how to counter the attack on civil rights, ways forward for Russia’s court and law-enforcement system, human rights as centre piece in an ideological battle in Russia and the world, how the situation has changed over the past 40 years and what we can learn from history, key challenges to human rights today, public control as a positive strategy for human rights activists’ who participate in civic activity, the situation regarding human rights activists and organizations in Russia, the possibilities and perspectives for action in conditions of increasing pressure on activists, and defending human rights activists who are at risk. Andrei Yurov, member of the Presidential Human Rights Council, spoke of a global crisis in the sphere of human rights. “The crisis is connected, in the first place, with the very concept of human rights. Today human rights are, for many, unintelligible and uninteresting ideas. People do not understand that their freedom and a normal life are, in some way or other, related to the idea of human rights” he argued. “Either we learn to work rather differently with human rights or neither they nor a human rights movement will exist,” Yurov warned. Mikhail Fedotov, chair of the Presidential Human Rights Council, spoke, in his address to the conference, of “the defence of human rights as the art of the impossible”. “In a transition period human rights defenders are especially needed,” he suggested, “and I am happy that on the Presidential Human Rights Council there so many excellent activists for whom defending rights is not a profession but a mission, one which in no way depends on official position or membership of some kind or other. I see many of them here today in the hall”. In her congratulatory letter to the Moscow Helsinki Group, the Ombudsman for human rights in the RF, Tatyana Moskalkova, thanked the human rights defenders for their unstinting service to the idea of defending human rights and freedoms, and expressed a wish that the Moscow Helsinki Group would celebrate its 50th anniversary just as committed and energetic as today on the 40th celebration of the human rights organization. On 12th May John Tefft, the US ambassador to the RF, congratulated Liudmila Alekseyeva, chair of the Moscow Helsinki Group, with the organization’s 40 years’ existence. The diplomat’s message appeared on the US Embassy’s website. In Tefft’s words: “Over the past forty years, often experiencing harsh repression, the Moscow Helsinki Group has fought to promote the ideas and values of human rights in the former Soviet Union and in the Russian Federation”. And, today, the ambassador’s statement continues, the Moscow Helsinki Group “continues to defend human rights, dignity, justice and the principle of the rule of law”. It was 40 years ago on this day, 12th May 1976, that a group of dissidents, led by physicist,Yury Orlov, announced the setting up of the Moscow Helsinki Group. The announcement was made at a press conference in Andrei Sakharov’s apartment in Moscow. The organization’s aim was to secure the observance of the Helsinki Accords, signed by European countries, the USA and Canada in 1975. According to these agreements, each country, including the USSR, accepted its obligation to observe international standards in the sphere of human rights. The Moscow Helsinki Group engaged in collecting information relating to the infringement of human rights in the USSR, and appealed to the USSR Supreme Soviet and to international organizations. In September 1982, after the arrest of a significant number of its members, the Moscow Helsinki Group ceased to operate, but came back to life in 1989. Since 1996 Liudmila Alekseyeva has chaired the Moscow Helsinki Group. At the jubilee conference the Moscow Helsinki Group gave awards to the Bolotnaya Square prisoners and to Ildar Danin for their bravery in defending human dignity. On 12 May, a celebratory evening was held at which the presentation of the annual Moscow Helsinki Group awards for work in the field of human rights took place. Henceforth the annual Moscow Helsinki Group award ceremony will be held place on 12th May – the day on which the Public Group to Promote Implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR was founded. Translated by Mary McAuley |
Mikhail Fedotov: 'Human rights advocacy is the art of the impossible' (Moscow Helsinki Group)
 Source: Moscow Helsinki Group [original source: Human Rights Council] Speech by Mikhail Fedotov, chair of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, at the 40th anniversary conference of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Given that we are all taking part not just in human rights but in the jubilee conference dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group, I would like to devote my speech to a justification of the thesis - "Advocacy is the art of the impossible." The art of the possible, as we know, is usually called politics. And there are good reasons for this. First, the policymaker will never seek the impossible, because he, as a pragmatist, knows exactly that the result will never cover the costs. Second, the policymaker will always strive not only to implement the possible but also to derive from it the maximum benefit for himself. In human rights everything is just the other way round. Forty years ago, a group of Soviet but, by disposition, anti-Soviet, citizens formed the Moscow Helsinki Group, officially calling it a "Public group to promote the implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR." Liudmila Alexeyeva remarked in her book The Thaw Generation that the name sounded "pretty ironic" (p. 292). But this concept possessed a clear logic. Liudmila Mikhailovna wrote: "The report of the group is an expert paper, it is impossible to ignore it, as the sporadic appeals of human rights defenders are sometimes ignored. Violations of the rights of citizens listed in the humanitarian articles will cease to be an internal matter. So, using pressure from the West, it will be possible to force the authorities to engage in dialogue with us." (p. 293). We should take notice of this symptomatic declaration: it wasn’t the West that used human rights defenders, as Soviet propaganda claimed, but on the contrary, human rights defenders used the West to protect human rights in their own country. So what was it, politics or human rights protection? On the one hand, what was at issue was what stems directly from the Final Article of the OSCE: public oversight over the observance of the human rights by one of the participant states in the Helsinki process. On the other hand, the constitution of the Soviet Union, not to mention other legislation, did not mention human rights at all, and therefore the function of public oversight over the observance of something that did not exist, had a purely human rights character, in other words it was absolutely impossible to carry out. Why did this initiative so stick in the throat of the Soviet leaders? This question is clearly answered by the TASS in an official statement, which is colourfully described by Yury Orlov in his book Dangerous Thoughts. "The statement argued,“ says Orlov, “that the Soviet government is not opposed to the monitoring of its compliance with the Helsinki Accords. (This was a lie –Orlov notes). It is important, however, who does the monitoring. (This was true.) Orlov, a professional anti-Soviet, who long ago gave up science (this was a lie), is engaged in this monitoring. His group is anti-constitutional; (and this was true, according to the Soviet Constitution, every organization should be led by the Communist Party.” (p. 183). I think would agree with the statement of the TASS of that time that the answer to the following question is of paramount significance : Who is it that is engaged in monitoring human rights? Acutally who are these people? We know their names, we know their professions: Yury Orlov, a physicist; Liudmila Alexeeva, an editor; Natan Sharansky, a mathematician; Alik Ginzburg, a journalist; Anatoly Marchenko, a worker, and so on. We know that all of them were individuals, each with their own extremely critical attitude towards the Soviet totalitarian regime. They were, in fact, people who thought in their own way, in other words dissidents. But is it one and the same thing to be a dissident and a human rights defender? Are "dissident" and "human rights defender" synonyms? I'm not sure it's so simple. But not every dissident is a human rights activist by a long chalk. A dissident may, for example, be a radical nationalist or a supporter of violence for the sake of achieving what they consider the public good. On the contrary, a human rights defender is always a peacemaker. He always follows the path of Mahatma Gandhi, rather than that of Ho Chi Minh or Che Guevara. And on this path, he hones his art of penetrating the concrete wall with a tennis ball. Certainly, none of those who have been trained to play tennis ‘against the wall,’ have not observed a single instance of the tennis ball hitting the racket, then shooting up to the ‘wall’ and then, instead of bouncing back, seeping through it. We should ask ourselves: is it possible to break through a concrete wall with a tennis ball? And the answer is: No, it's impossible! But at the atomic level, where instead of flying balls there are elementary particles, it is not only possible, but commonplace, for which there is even a special term: ‘the tunnel effect.’ On the contrary, in the everyday world, where we live every day, a ball passing through concrete through a ‘window of opportunity’ would be a real miracle. To perform such a miracle is impossible except for true masters of the art of the impossible, namely, human rights defenders. In order to understand the art of the impossible, we must imagine the desired outcome as an event whose probability is negligible. Whether this insignificantly small likelihood materialises, depends on how the scenario develops after the point of divergence. In turn, these fluctuations which decide the development of events bear are microscopically small from the point of view of history. It is through them that the probability plays a role in events. After all, it only seems that the coin itself decides to fall heads or tails. In fact it is a random combination of fluctuations that decides the matter. In social processes, which include the protection of human rights, these fluctuations are the result of the individual actions of people, including human rights defenders who systematically and relentlessly bombard the concrete wall of bureaucracy with the tennis balls of their open letters, statements, complaints, assessments, draft legislation, lawsuits, etc. . Moreover, there is always a little ‘crack’ in the concrete wall, which, like the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland, turns out to be a multi-level maze, in which ‘cracks’ appear, then disappear, sometimes leading to a dead end, sometimes opening the way in the right direction. And when our ‘ball’ unexpectedly falls into a labyrinth of this kind, with its ‘windows of opportunity,’ then small fluctuations produce great results. And the result is a very unlikely outcome that people commonly refer to as a miracle. These subtle fluctuations have their strongest influence on the course of developments in the so-called periods of transition, which can be likened to a state of unstable equilibrium. At these times the object, that is, society, can, in theory, fall in any direction. Moreover, this ‘falling could be the result of relatively small, weak fluctuations, both external or internal. And while the possibility of a return to the original state of affairs in principle remains until the completion of the transition period, as we move towards the end of the transition period more and more powerful influences are required to turn back the process of transformation or to divert it ‘sideways.’ That is why human rights activists are so particularly essential during periods of transition, when people are so in need of a miracle. We have lived through just such a transitional period in the past quarter of a century. But the Moscow Helsinki Group was born fifteen years earlier, during the period which is officially called that of developed socialism, and informally ‘the end of the world in a single country.’ I believe that the very phrase ‘end of the world’ contains certainty and finality, a kind of final stability, like a tram coming to the last stop on its route. Only the human rights defenders did not fall into despair in the face of the fundamental nature of this terminus, but continued to grope for a ‘window of opportunity’ in the monolith. And the wall fell. Of course, it was not knocked down by Andrei Sakharov, but mainly by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But without Sakharov, without his ideas and his moral influence, that is, without the most miniscule fluctuations by Soviet standards, there would not have been any Gorbachev who destroyed the Berlin Wall, nor a Yeltsin, who gave Russia a new Constitution with genuine human rights. I repeat, human rights defenders are especially needed during a transitional period. And I am very happy that there are so many very fine human rights defenders in the Presidential Human Rights Council, for whom this is not a profession but a mission that does not depend on their official position or on their membership in anything. I can see many of them here today. And it’s a pleasure for me to make way for them on the tribune. Translated by Graham Jones |
Statement: "Drop unfounded criminal charges against Russian human rights activist Valentina Cherevatenko"
 Source: Public Verdict Foundation Statement of representatives of Russian and international civil society organizations We, representatives of Russian and international civil society organisations, are deeply outraged by a new and alarming development in the campaign of pressure against Russian civil society: a potential opening of the first criminal case in the framework of the law on "NGOs as foreign agents." As we have learned, our colleague Valentina Cherevatenko received summons to present herself on May 6 and then on May 10 at the 7th Investigation Department (located in Rostov-on-Don) of the Main Investigation Department of the Russian Investigative Committee as part of pre-investigation checks into alleged "malevolent evasion of duties imposed by the law on non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent." Cherevatenko learned during the questioning that the check had been initiated into alleged violations of the said law by two non-profit organizations, the Women of the Don Union and the Women of the Don Foundation for Civil Society Development, where Cherevatenko serves as the Chair of the Coordination Council and the Chair of the Board, respectively. Both organizations have been included in the "foreign agents" register (the Union on June 5, 2014, and the Foundation on October 27, 2015). Eventually, on February 29, 2016, the Russian Ministry of Justice officially deleted the Women of the Don Union from the register on the grounds that "it had stopped performing the functions of a foreign agent." Refusing to accept the "foreign agent" label, both NGOs challenged their listing in the register and related fines in civil and administrative proceedings. With their appeal pending, both groups nevertheless complied with all obligations imposed by the "foreign agents" law, such as filing the required reports and audited statements with the Ministry of Justice and informing the public of the fact that they were listed as "foreign agents"; they also paid all administrative fines imposed by courts. The Russian Criminal Code provides for criminal liability punishable by up to two years of prison for non-compliance with the "foreign agents" law in article 330.1 added in 2012 as part of a package of amendments pursuant to the enactment of the "foreign agents" law; the only legal ground provided for bringing charges under this article is "malevolent evasion of the duty to file the documents required for inclusion in the register of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent." International bodies have severely criticized this Criminal Code article, as well as the entire "foreign agents" law. In particular, according to the opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe on Russia's "foreign agents" law, compliance with international standards implies that "[s]evere criminal sanctions should only be applied in case of serious wrongdoing and should always be proportional to this wrongdoing." In his official opinion, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights described the introduction of criminal sanctions as a severe penalty which can hardly be qualified as "'necessary in a democratic society' while remaining proportionate to the offence committed." In its official comment dated June 29, 2012, No. 2-VS-3395/12, the Russian Supreme Court stated that the article in question of the Criminal Code failed to comply with the principle of legal certainty, as it did not contain the element of "socially dangerous consequences as a feature distinguishing a criminal act from an administrative offense"; the Court also noted that "malevolent" is an evaluative term, and its lack of legal definition "may cause problems for those responsible for enforcing the law in terms of objective assessment of the act in question and its degree of public danger. " Apparently, these comments were ignored when the law was enacted. Moreover, the Constitutional Court of Russia stated in its ruling on April 8, 2014, No. 10-P, that "based on the presumption of legality and good faith of non-profit organizations, this obligation should be subject to a notification procedure - based on an NGO's self-assessment of its own intentions - prior to the start of political activity." Thus, following a self-assessment of their work based on the definition provided in the Federal Law on Non-profit Organizations, the Women of the Don Union and the Women of the Don Foundation concluded that neither organization was engaging in political activity; therefore, according to the Constitutional Court's position, they did not have the obligation to file an application for being included in the register. The above legal opinions clearly indicate that the provision introducing criminal liability for "malevolent evasion of duties imposed by the law on non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent" fails to meet the principles of legal certainty and proportionality and therefore cannot be applied and must be abolished. The work performed by the Women of the Don Union and Women of the Don Foundation teams and Valentina Cherevatenko's personal contribution have received well-deserved recognition in and outside Russia. Their contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian relief during conflicts in the south of Russia has been unprecedented and unique. Launched in the mid-nineties, the permanent conference "Women for a Life without Wars and Violence" offers a unique example of collaboration bringing together civil society activists from all conflict zones in the post-Soviet space. The initiative includes longstanding efforts to maintain dialogue between people in the Chechen Republic and other Russian regions; setting up a network of trauma specialists; design and delivery of a training course for volunteer assistants to psychologists; organizing mobile teams to offer psychosocial assistance to residents of Beslan after the hostage crisis and to people in the flooded Krymsk; helping families at risk and in crisis, victims of violence, and more. We are convinced that the Russian Investigative Committee's actions in regard of Valentina Cherevatenko constitute an unfounded and disproportionate interference in the operation of civil society organizations and violate Russia's international human rights obligations. Moreover, these actions can establish a dangerous new precedent for criminalization of peaceful and legitimate human rights activity, thus violating the foundations of a democratic society and the rule of law. We strongly believe that by prosecuting Valentina Cherevatenko, the Russian authorities have effectively brought charges against the entire Russian civil society. This case makes it even more obvious that the "foreign agents" law is unlawful, repressive and needs to be abolished. We express our support to and solidarity with Valentina Cherevatenko and her colleagues and call on other Russian citizens and foreign colleagues to join us. We urge the Russian authorities to stop their pressure campaign against Valentina Cherevatenko and the NGOs she leads - the Women of the Don Union and Foundation - and provide a favorable environment for the work of human rights defenders and civil society activists in the south of Russia and in the entire country, including by bringing the legislation on non-profit organizations in full compliance with international standards. We urge intergovernmental organizations to give special attention to this alarming precedent and use all means available to them to influence the Russian authorities and help put an end to the repressive enforcement of the "foreign agents" law and have this law abolished. Signatures: Russia: 1. Natalia Taubina, director of the Public Verdict Foundation (Russia) 2. Konstantin Baranov, member of the Coordination Council of the International Youth Human Rights Movement (Russia) 3. Elena Shakhova, chair of the Citizen's Watch (Russia) 4. Yuri Dzhibladze, president of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia) 5. Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the SOVA Information and Analytical Center (Russia) 6. Dmitry Makarov, co-chair of the Coordination Council of the International Youth Human Rights Movement (Russia) 7. Lyudmila Alexeeva, chair of the Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia) 8. Arseni Roginsky, chair of the International Memorial Society (Russia) 9. Elena Zhemkova, executive director of the International Memorial Society (Russia) 10. Sergei Krivenko, member of the Presidential Council on Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (Russia) 11. Valery Borshyov, member of the Moscow Helsinki Group, co-chair of the Association of Independent Monitors (Russia) 12. Sergei Poduzov, co-chair of the "Man and Law" NGO (Russia) 13. Andrey Kalikh, independent journalist (Russia) 14. Andrey Blinushov, chair of Ryazan Memorial Society (Russia) 15. Tatiana Vinnichenko, chairwoman of the Council of Interregional Public Movement "Russian LGBT network" (Russia) 16. Igor Kochetkov, Director, Legal and Social Support Charitable Foundation "Sphere" (Russia) 17. Sergey Nikitin, head of Amnesty International office in Russia 18. Andrey Laletin, chair of the Council of Krasnoyarsk Public Movement "Friends of Siberian Forests" (Russia) 19. Anatoly Sumbaev, chair of the Council of Social-Ecological Society "Green Dubna" (Russia) 20. Viktor Voronkov, president of the Center of Independent Sociological Research (Russia) 21. Robert Latypov, chair of Perm Regional Branch of Memorial Society (Russia) 22. Svyatoslav Zabelin, coordinator of International Socio-Ecological Union (Russia) 23. Vitaly Servetnik, co-chair of Russian Socio-Ecological Union/Friends of the Earth (Russia) 24. Natalia Kalinina, Amur Ecological Club Ulukitkan (Russia) 25. Oksana Karpenko, executive director of the Center of Independent Sociological Research (Russia) 26. Elena Chikadze, researcher at the Center of Independent Sociological Research (Russia) 27. Sergey Mukhachyov, head of the Tatar Branch of Russian Socio-Ecological Union (Russia) 28. Elena Nemirovskaya, head of the School of Civic Education (Russia) 29. Yuri Senokosov, School of Civic Education (Russia) 30. Alexander Fedorov, director of the Center of Coordination and Information of the Lipetsk Socio-Ecological Union (Russia) 31. Nikolay Sobolev, Socio-Ecological Union (Russia) 32. Alexey Zimenko, general director of the Center for the Protection of Wild Nature (Russia) 33. Lidiya Grafova, chair of the executive committee of the Forum of Migrants' Organisations (Russia) 34. Igor Shkradyuk, Center for the Protection of Wild Nature (Russia) 35. Fedor Kronikovsky, coordinator of Ecological Group "Taiga" (Russia) 36. Andrey Kozlovich, president of the Foundation "Ariston" (Russia) 37. Galina Arapova, Director and senior media lawyer, Mass Media Defence Centre (Russia) 38. Dmitry Krayukhin, chief editor of the Informational and Analytical Human Rights Center "CenterRus" (Russia) 39. Veronika Katkova, chair of the Orlov regional branch of the Movement for the Protection of the Electoral Rights "Golos" (Russia) 40. Igor Sazhin, chair of the Komi Human Rights Commission "Memorial" (Russia) 41. Victoria Ivleva, journalist, photographer (Russia) 42. Olga Zakharova, director of Analytical Centre "Freedom Files" (Russia) 43. Lyudmila Vakhnina, member of the Council of "Memorial" Human Rights Center (Russia) 44. Olga Gnezdilova, attorney (Russia) 45. Marina Rikhvanova, environmental activist, Irkutsk (Russia) 46. Vladimir Nazarenko, president of the Regional Public NGO "Sailing Academy", Taganrog (Russia) 47. Tatyana Spozhakina, chair of NGO "Green Wallet" (Russia) 48. Zinaida Altukhova, chair of the Public Environmental Center, Sakha (Yakutia) (Russia) 49. Alexander Veselov, environmental lawyer, Bashkiria (Russia) 50. Evgenya Chirikova, "Activatica" (Russia) 51. Valentina Semyashkina, "Save Pechora" Committee, Komi Republic (Russia) 52. Dmitrii Rybakov, Association of the Greens of Karelia (Russia) 53. Elena Kolpakova, Russia River Network, Nizhny Novgorod (Russia) International: 54. Yevgeniy Zhovtis, Chairman of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan) 55. Eldar Zeynalov, director of the Human Rights Center (Azerbaijan) 56. Zalikha Tagirova, member of the Council of the Human Rights Center (Azerbaijan) 57. Oleksandra Matviychuk, chair of the Board of the Center for Civic Liberties (Ukraine) 58. Alexandra Delemenchuk, program director of the Analytical Center for Interethnic Cooperation and Consultations (Georgia) 59. Stefan Melle, director of DRA - German-Russian Exchange, Berlin (Germany) 60. Sardar Bagishbekov, head of Voice of Freedom Foundation (Kyrgyzstan) 61. Sergey Solyanik, consultant at Crude Accountability (Kazakhstan) 62. Maria Yasenovskaya, president of the Kharkov Regional Foundation "Public Alternative" (Ukraine) 63. Krasimir Kanev, chair of the Board of Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria) 64. Alexandru Postica, human rights program director at Promo LEX (Moldova) 65. Dilrabo Samadova, chair of the Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan) 66. Avetik Ishkhanyan, chair of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia) 67. Artur Sakunts, director of Vanadzor office of Helsinki Civic Assembly (Armenia) 68. Mina Goldenberg, ecological activist (Israel) 69. Simon Papuashvili, project coordinator of the International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium) 70. Katie Morris, Head of Europe and Central Asia Programme, ARTICLE 19 (United Kingdom) 71. Dr. Leila Alieva, head of the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan) 72. Pepijn Gerrits, Executive Director, Netherlands Helsinki Committee (the Netherlands) 73. Anara Ibraeva, acting director of the organization "Kadir-kasiet" (Kazakhstan) 74. Elena Tonkacheva, chair of the Board of the Center of Legal Transformation (Belarus) 75. Ralph du Long, head of UNITED for International Cooperation (the Netherlands) 76. Tatiana Revyako, president of the Boris Zvozskov Belarussian House of Human Rights (Belarus) 77. Tolekan Ismailova, chair of the Human Rights Movement "Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan" (Kyrgyzstan) 78. Roza Akylbekova, director of Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan) 79. Danuta Przywara, chair of the Board of Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland) 80. Vadim Pivovarov, executive Director of the Ukrainian Association of Monitors for Observation of Human Rights in the Law Enforcement Performance (Ukraine) 81. Evgeniya Belorusets, painter, human rights activist, co-editor of the publication "Prostory" (Ukraine, Germany) 82. Stepan Cernousek, chair of the Society "Gulag.cz" (Czech Republic) 83. Michaela Stilova, member of the Society "Gulag.cz" (Czech Republic) 84. Ilya Trombitskiy, executive director of the International Association of the Defenders of River Eco-TIRAS (Moldova) 85. Vera Ammer, Memorial (Germany) 86. Alban Muriqi, Project Manager at the Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims (Kosovo) 87. Alima Abdirova, director of the organization "Aru ana" (Kazakhstan) 88. Olga Klimonova, human rights activist (Kazakhstan) 89. Dr. Falk Bomsdorf, independent analyst (Germany) 90. Halya Coynash, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (Ukraine) 91. Tetiana Pechonchyk, Chairperson of the Board of the Center of Information for Human Rights (Ukraine) 92. Natalia Arno, President of the Free Russia Foundation (USA) 93. Stephan Doempke, Chairman of the World Heritage Watch (Germany) 94. Oleg Levytskyi, lawyer, Citizens Advise Bureau of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine) 95. Dr. Anna Schor-Tschudnowskaja, researcher at the Faculty of Psychology, Sigmund Freud Universität (Austria) 96. Joanna Barelkowska, member of women´s peace organisation OWEN e.V. (Germany) 97. Marit Cremer, director of Memorial-Germany (Germany) 98. Oleksandra Bienert, PRAVO, Berlin Group for Human Rights in Ukraine (Germany) 99. Maxim Butkevich, coordinator of "Without Borders Project" of the NGO "Center of Social Action" (Ukraine) 100. Irena Fedorovich, coordinator of "Without Borders Project" of the NGO "Center of Social Action" (Ukraine) 101. Elena Semyonova, chair of "For Protection of People's Housing" (Kazakhstan) 102. Igor Kolov, chair of the Public Committee for Human Rights (Kazakhstan) 103. Irina Vyrtosu, journalist at the Center of Human Rights Information (Ukraine) 104. Evgeny Zakharov, director of Kharkov Human Rights Group (Ukraine) 105. Mikael Danielyan, chair of the Helsinki Association of Armenia (Armenia) 106. Olga Skrypnyk, head of the Crimean Human Rights Group (Ukraine) 107. Marianne von Grunigen, President of the Swiss Helsinki Committee (Switzerland) 108. Haykuhi Harutyunyan, President of "Protection of Rights without Borders" (Armenia) 109. Izabela Kisic, Executive Director of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia) 110. Waleria Radziejowska-Hahn, Chair of the Lew Kopelew Forum (Germany) 111. Dr.Marina Grasse, co-founder and member of women´s peace organisation OWEN e.V. (Germany) 112. Lyudmila Kozlovskaya, Open Dialogue Foundation (Ukraine) 113. Christian Dietrich, Landesbeauftragter für Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur (Germany) 114. Peter Frank, Chair of the Co-Group on Russian Federation, Amnesty International, German Section (Germany) 115. Eugene Simonov, coordinator of the International Coalition "Rivers without Borders", Dalny (People's Republic of China) 116. Reinhard Weißhuhn, Board Member, Robert-Havemann-Gesellschaft, Berlin (Germany) 117. Nigina Bakhrieva, founder of the public foundation "Notabene" (Tajikistan) 118. Maren Koop, Amnesty International (Germany) 119. Dana Jirous, project coordinator, OWEN e.V. (Germany) 120. Uli Epple, Wasserburg (Germany) 121. Constantin Köster, Member of Amnesty International, German Section, Berlin (Germany) 122. Yusup Kamalov, chair of the Union for Protection of Aral and Amu Darya, Nukus, Karakalpakstan (Uzbekistan) 123. Fikret Jafarov, chairman of the society "Sustainable development" (Azerbaijan) 124. Ibragimzhon Domulajanov, Association "For Environmentally Safe Ferghana" (Uzbekistan) 125. Ivar Dale, Senior Adviser, Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway) Latest signatories: 126. Aleksandr Cherkasov, Memorial Human Rights Centre (Russia)127. Friederike Behr (Russia) 128. Aimée Vega Montiel, member, Global Alliance for Media and Gender (UNESCO) 129. Elena Nadtoka, journalist, Novocherkassk (Russia) 130. Liubov Shtyleva, senior researcher, Institute for the Study of Childhood, the Family and Education of the Russian Academy for Education образования" (Russia) 131. Rozlana Taukina, president, Federation of Journalists with Equal Rights of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) 132. Irina Савостина, leader of the 'Generation' Republican Movement of Pensioners of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) 133. Nailya Ибрагимова, human rights defender (Russia) 134. Sergei Лукашевский, director of Sakharov Centre (Russia) 135. Oleg Орлов, member of the board, Memorial Human Rights Centre (Russia) 136. Julia Sherwood, chair of the trustees, Rights in Russia (UK) 137. Simon Cosgrove, director, Rights in Russia (UK) 138. Svetlana Kuzevanova, senior lawyer, Media Rights Centre (Russia) 139. Asmik Novikova, head of the department of investigation programmes, Public Verdict Foundation (Russia) 140. Nadezhda Azhgikhina, secretary, Union of Journalists of Russia, vice-president European Federation of Journalists (Russia) 141. Lidiya Zlatogorskaya, chair, Saratov section of the Union of Journalists of Russia (Russia) 142. Agata Teutsch, president, Autonomy Foundation (Poland) 143. Inna Tregubova, coordinator, educational programmes, Centre for Media Rights (Russia) 144. Doctor Henning Pietsch (Germany) 145. Irina Paikacheva, Lawyers for Human Rights (Russia) 146. Askhat Kaiumov, Dront Environmental Centre (Russia) 147. Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair, Ekozashchita! (Russia) 148. Ramazan Esergepov, chair of the board, Kazakhstan Human Rights Public Foundation Journalists in Danger (Kazakhstan) 149. Dametken Alenova, head, Unity Public Association (Kazakhstan) 150. Natalya Bitiukova, deputy director, Institute of Human Rights Monitoring (Lithuania) 151. Vyacheslav Paikachev, human rights defender (Russia) 152. Gleb Paikachev, human rights defender (Russia) 153. Bekkhan Pliev, human rights defender (Russia) 154. Olena Suslova, chair of the board, Womens Centre for Information and Consultations (Украина) 155. Tatyana Lysenko, deputy chair, Adygei Republic Section of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature (Russia) 156. Irina Reznikova, member, Kostroma section of the Russian Social and Environmental Union (Russia) 157. Dmitry Rybov, Yaroslavl Environmental NGO Green Branch (Russia) 158. Aleksandr Gavrilov, environmentalist, Kazan (Russia) 159. Sergei Shapkhaev, environmentalist, Ulan-Ude (Russia) Translation by Public Verdict Foundation |
Winners of the 2016 Moscow Helsinki Group Awards
 Source: Moscow Helsinki Group Moscow Helsinki Group has named the winners of its 2016 human rights prizes. Stanislav Dmitrievsky, human rights defender from Nizhny Novgorod, has been awarded the MHG prize for courage shown in the protection of human rights. The MHG prize for a historical contribution to the protection of human rights and the human rights movement has been awarded to member of the Academy of Sciences and prominent public figure Yury Ryzhov. Yuly Kim, poet, composer, singer, Soviet-era dissident, has been awarded the MHG prize for protection of human rights through culture and art. The MHG prize for advancing human rights values through journalism has been awarded to the Novaya gazeta journalist Еlena Masiuk. Sofia Ivanova, creator and head of the Ryazan School of Human Rights has been awarded the MHG prize for contribution to human rights education. The MHG prize for defending human rights in court has been awarded to Маrina Dubrovina, a human rights lawyer from Krasnodar region. Galina Arapova, director of the Centre for the Protection of Media Rights (Voronezh) has been awarded the MHG prize for success in the development and administration of human rights organizations. For work in defence of social rights and the interests of local communities, the MHG award has gone to Маdina Magomadova, director of the NGO Mothers of Chechnya. MHG has awarded Еlena Lukyanova, doctor of legal science and professor at the Higher Economic School, with the prize for expertise and research in the area of human rights. Natalya Sindeeva, general director of the TV station Dozhd, has been awarded the MHG prize for developing traditions of human rights protection among young people. For more information about the laureates of the MHG’s 2016 Human Rights Awards, see here For information about previous winners of MHG’s Human Rights Awards, see here From 2016, the year of the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group, the award ceremony for the winners of MHG Human Rights Awards will take place on 12 May, the date of the founding of the Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR. |
Institute of Law & Public Policy: Review of Russian Constitutional Court Judgment re enforcement of judgment of European Court of Human Rights in 'Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia'
 Source: Institute of Law & Public Policy In a judgment which has caused much disagreement among scholars and practitioners both with regard to its message and its consequences, the Constitutional Court has for the first time ever declared a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights unenforceable (if only in part) in Russia. At the same time, the Constitutional Court took pains to convince its various audiences that it can sit on two chairs and ensure Russia’s continued commitment to international law while preserving the supremacy of its Constitution. Subject-matter of the case. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – CCRF) reviewed the possibility of enforcement of the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - ECtHR) of 4 July 2013 in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia in compliance with Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution. The CCRF came to the following conclusions:
The CCRF began its analysis by applying linguistic and systemic approaches to the interpretation of Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution Linguistic (grammatical) interpretation shows that Article 32(3) constitutes an absolute ban allowing no exceptions. Hence, the CCRF considered it impossible either to interpret it as disenfranchising only individuals convicted of offenses of the utmost gravity, or to renounce that ban altogether based on the principle of universal suffrage. Furthermore, as Article 16(2) establishes supremacy of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation (Chapter 1) over any other provision in the Constitution, all the provisions of the Russian Constitution are in “consistent systemic unity”. Consequently, the CCRF was of the opinion that Article 32(3) of the Constitution “by no means can be read as contradicting the principles of free elections and universal suffrage that are codified therein . . . or as not satisfying the criteria for permissible limitation of the constitutional rights and freedoms”. In terms of historical approach to the interpretation of Article 32(2) the CCRF noted that the ban on prisoners’ voting rights could be found in the Constitutions of the RSFSR of 1918 and 1937, in the RSFSR Law of 27 October 1989 “On Amendments and Additions to the RSFSR Constitution (Fundamental Law)”. As for the current Constitution of 1993, the Constitutional Assembly of Russia discussed the option of recognizing prisoners’ right to vote in 1993 but ultimately rejected it in favor of the absolute prohibition that is now in force. The CCRF criticized the ECtHR judgement in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia not only as interpreting Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as necessitating, by implication, amendments to Article 32(2) of the Russian Constitution, what Russia did not consent to when it ratified Protocol No. 1, but also as delivered in violation of the principle of subsidiarity of the ECtHR. According to the CCRF, the ECtHR applied “evolutive” interpretation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the absence of the so-termed “European consensus” – a relatively uniform approach to a particular legal issue adopted by the majority of States Parties to the Convention. Finally, the CCRF emphasized that although the Convention is a constituent part of the Russia’s legal system, it is the Russian Constitution that, by virtue of its supreme legal force, takes precedence within the framework of that system. This led the CCRF to the conclusion that the Convention, as an international treaty, “enjoys superior legal force as compared to a federal law, but its legal force is not superior or even equal to the one of the Russian Constitution”. Any possible reading of Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution in light of the interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 by the ECtHR shall not go so far as to contradict “the logics of legal interpretation”.
The CCRF stated that disenfranchisement applies only to persons sentenced to “imprisonment” and does not extend to penalties of a similar nature involving “restriction of liberty in a general sense”, such as compulsory labor, arrest, restriction of liberty or service in a disciplinary military unit. As the CCRF pondered on the principle of proportionality it referred to the practice of the ECtHR, according to which disenfranchisement of persons sentenced to imprisonment for 3 or more years does not violate Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In the eyes of the CCRF, Russian criminal legislation “almost entirely” excludes the possibility of actual imprisonment for individuals, convicted of crimes of little gravity with no aggravating circumstances for which the maximum prison sentence does not exceed 3 years. For crimes of average gravity or even for grave crimes Russian courts can pass a jail sentence only taking into account all circumstances of a crime, personality of the accused, and a possibility of their reformation without isolation from the community. To support the conclusion that Russian courts do apply such differentiated approach when passing jail sentences the CCRF drew upon the statistical data published by the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. According to the data during the period from 2011 to 2015 out of all the persons sentenced for imprisonment for each category of crimes only 8,8-11,5% out of those sentenced for crimes of little gravity received the actual prison sentence; out of those sentenced for crimes of average gravity – 18-32%; 46–47% – for grave crimes; and 91–95% – for especially grave crimes.
The CCRF specifically points to the regime of settlement colonies where, as a general rule, persons convicted of negligent crimes and of intentional crimes of little or average gravity serve their prison sentences. In comparison to other regimes of serving a prison sentence settlement colonies place much lighter restrictions on prisoners’ liberties, who are allowed to move freely within the territory of a settlement colony and a respective municipality; wear civilian clothing; work and receive part-time education in educational organizations of higher and professional education etc. All of the above makes the regime of settlement colonies strongly resemble other regimes of punishment unrelated to imprisonment.
The CCRF recalled that under the approach developed by the ECtHR, disenfranchisement of persons sentenced to imprisonment for the term of 3 or more years is not a disproportionate restriction of their voting rights. Since both S.B.Anchugov and V.M.Gladkov were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, their disenfranchisement did not violate their rights secured by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Institute has filed an independent expert opinion (amicus curiae brief) in which it examined possible ways to interpret Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution for the purposes of the decision on compliance with the ECtHR ruling of 4 July 2013 in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia. Analysis conducted by the Institute leads to the conclusion that provisions of the Russian Constitution are to be interpreted in such a way that would allow Russia not to violate its international law obligations (the principle of consistent interpretation). Applying systemic, historical and evolutionary approaches to the interpretation of Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution one comes to the conclusion that an absolute ban on prisoner’s voting rights is not the only possible interpretation of Article 32(3) demonstrate that an absolute ban on prisoners’ voting is not the only possible interpretation of art. 32(3). The ECtHR judgment in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia may be complied with, for instance, by way of enactment of legislation governing prisoners’ voting rights on the basis of such factors as the gravity of offence, mens rea, the length of the prison term, or by empowering the courts to impose a restriction of voting rights on a case by case basis. Click here to access the amicus curiae brief (in English). |
Institute of Law & Public Policy: Russian Constitutional Court hears first case re compliance with judgment of European Court of Human Rights
 Source: Institute of Law & Public Policy Russian Constitutional Court (RCC) held a hearing on 31 March 2016 on the issue of Russia’s compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia. This is the first time RCC makes a decision on the possibility to comply with a ruling of an international human rights protection body, in accordance with the Russian Constitution. In its judgment in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia the ECtHR found that Russia violated art. 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights inasmuch as all convicted prisoners in Russia are disenfranchised by virtue of art. 32(3) of the Russian Constitution. Institute for Law and Public Policy has filed an independent expert opinion (amicus curiae brief) in which it outlined possible ways to interpret art. 32(3) of the Russian Constitution for the purposes of the decision on compliance with the ECtHR ruling of 4th July 2013 in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia. Analysis conducted by the Institute leads to the following conclusions: (i) Determination of the meaning of art. 32(3) of the Russian Constitution is informed by the principle of consistent interpretation. In accordance with this principle, where several interpretations are possible, an interpretation allowing Russia to avoid a breach of its international obligations is to be preferred. (ii) Systemic, historical and evolutionary approaches to the interpretation of art. 32(3) of the Russian Constitution demonstrate that an absolute ban on prisoners’ voting is not the only possible interpretation of art. 32(3). In particular:
Click here to access the amicus curiae brief (in Russian). |
1-10 of 274