Legal Case of the Week
Legal Case of the Week: Court orders disbandment of Interregional Labour Union of Automobile Workers
Legal Case of the Week: Mother fined for teenager's participation in 26 March demonstration in Volgograd
The mother of one teenager detained at the rally subsequently appealed against the 10,000 rouble fine imposed on her. In this case, police alleged that they had repeatedly told the teenager to leave the rally. The teenager had allegedly refused to do so. Caucasian Knot reports that in the appeal the teenager's mother "claimed that the commission for minors' affairs had no evidence, apart from the police protocol." Caucasian Knot reports that the court upheld the fine on the basis of the materials of the case that included a report the teenager had informed the commission he took part in the rally, "knowing in advance that it did not have official permission." According to this report, he also affirmed that the police had told him to leave the scene of the illegal rally. Photo of Mamaev Kurgan, Volgograd: Wikipedia Source: 'Volgograd mother fined for her son's participation in anti-corruption rally,' Caucasian Knot, 28 June 2017We are delighted you have been reading Rights in Russia. As a non-for-profit organization that does not carry advertising, we rely on our readers and well-wishers to support our work. If you share our belief in the importance of our mission, in the need to publicize the human rights situation in Russia, please consider making a donation to help keep Rights in Russia alive. To donate, see HERE |
Legal Case of the Week: Bayev and Others v. Russia [ECtHR]
![]() 'One of the activists who brought the case was arrested after he had stood in front of a secondary school in Ryazan with placards stating “homosexuality is normal” and “I am proud of my homosexuality”. The second and third applicants had picketed a public library in Arkhangelsk with banners listing famous Russians believed to have been gay. One of the banners said: “Children have the right to know. Great people are also sometimes gay; gay people also become great. Homosexuality is natural and normal.” One of the men carried out another protest at an administrative building in St Petersburg. The three men had been fined for breaking the law and appealed to the ECHR in Strasbourg after Russia’s constitutional court dismissed their cases. In a long-awaited ruling the ECHR took apart the arguments put forward by Russian government lawyers, rejecting claims the law protected public morals, health and other people’s rights.' The applicants were represented in court by Mr Dmitry Bartenev, a human rights lawyer practising in St. Petersburg. In what The Guardian described as a 'comprehensive demolition of the arguments advanced by Russian [government] lawyers, the European Court of Human Rights in its ruling stated: “By adopting such laws the [Russian] authorities reinforce stigma and encourage homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society." The judgment was adopted on the basis of majority of six out of seven of the judges. The Russian judge Dmitry Dedov dissented. The Guardian quoted one of the applicants, Nikolai Alexeev, a gay rights activist, as saying the ruling was 'an enormous court victory for LGBT people in Russia. [...] We have managed to legally prove that by adopting those laws Russian authorities breached their international commitments under the European convention.' Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads: "ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads: "ARTICLE 14
Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status." Commenting on Article 14 of the Convention, UK Human Rights Blog writes: "This right is parasitic; it is of no use to someone wishing to complain of discrimination who cannot establish that another free-standing Convention right is engaged. [...] So, Article 14 must be pleaded in relation to some other substantive right in the Convention. It is not necessary to establish an actual violation of another Article; if the claim comes within the ambit of another protected right then it is possible for the applicant to succeed on discrimination alone, even if the primary violation has not been established, or the Member State’s action has been found to come within one of the permissible exceptions to that right (Belgian Linguistic Case (1967) 1 EHRR 252)." Sources: 'CASE OF BAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA,' European Court of Human Rights, 20 June 2017 Jennifer Rankin, 'Russian "gay propaganda" law ruled discriminatory by European court,' The Guardian, 20 June 2017 'ECHR rule exposes homophobic nature of Russian “gay propaganda law”,' Amnesty International, 20 June 2017 European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe website 'Article 14,' UK Human Rights Blog Rights in Russia alive. To donate, see HERE We are delighted you have been reading Rights in Russia. As a non-for-profit organization that does not carry advertising, we rely on our readers and well-wishers to support our work. If you share our belief in the importance of our mission, in the need to publicize the human rights situation in Russia, please consider making a donation to help keep |
Legal Case of the Week: Dinar Idrisov
![]() Front Line Defenders describes the events leading up to Dinar Idrisov's arrest on 13 June 2017 as follows: On 13 June 2017 at the Dzerzhinsky district Court of Saint Petersburg, Dinar Idrisov was attempting to provide legal assistance to activists and protesters who were on trial after they were arbitrarily detained during the anti-corruption demonstrations in Saint Petersburg on 12 June 2017. A judge of the court denied him access to the detainees and ordered his arrest. In the court building, the police accused Dinar Idrisov of failure to follow an order of a judge or bailiff under Article 17.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and released him. When Dinar Idrisov left the court building, an unidentified person threw a bottle at him, that the defender managed to avoid. Immediately following the attack, police officers arrested Dinar Idrisov and took him to a special administrative detention facility in Gatchina city. At 6 pm on 14 June 2017, Dinar Idrisov was put on trial by the Dzerzhinsky district Court of Saint Petersburg, where he was found guilty of ”petty hooliganism” under Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, owing to 'swearwords' that the defender allegedly directed at his attacker. The court hearing lasted six hours and was held behind closed doors. After the court announced the guilty verdict, Dinar Idrisov was transferred to a detention centre in Gatchina city to serve his sentence. Photo: Front Line Defenders 'Dinar Idrisov receives administrative sentence,' Front Line Defenders, 16 June 2017 We are delighted you have been reading Rights in Russia. As a non-for-profit organization that does not carry advertising, we rely on our readers and well-wishers to support our work. If you share our belief in the importance of our mission, in the need to publicize the human rights situation in Russia, please consider making a donation to help keep Rights in Russia alive. To donate, see HERE |
Legal Case of the Week: Church of Scientology
![]() While in 1996 the State Duma adopted a resolution that classified the Church of Scientology as a "destructive religious organization", in 2015 a court ordered the Church of Scientology's Moscow operation to be dissolved, on the grounds it could not be considered a religious organization. Photo of symbol of Scientology: Wikipedia 'Russian court bans Moscow branch of the Church of Scientology,' The Guardian, 23 November 2017Sources: 'Church of Scientology Raided by Russian Security Forces (Again),' The Moscow Times, 6 June 2017 'Court Orders Scientology Church Leader, Members Detained In St. Petersburg,' RFE/RL, 9 June 2017 |
Legal Case of the Week: Valentina Cherevatenko
![]() Women of the Don was added to the Justice Ministry's list of foreign agents in 2014. Valentina Cherevatenko was informed that she was a suspect under Article 330.1 of the Russian Criminal Code following a search law enforcement officers conducted of her offices on 24 June 2016. As Amnesty International has reported: "Article 330.1 makes 'systematic evasion of duties imposed by the law on non-profit organisations performing the
functions of a foreign agent' a crime which carries a penalty of up to two years in prison.
Article 330.1 was added to the Russian Criminal Code as part of the so-called 'foreign agents law' which requires
all NGOs who receive foreign funding and engage in vaguely defined 'political activities' to register as 'organisations performing the functions of foreign agents,' brand all their public materials accordingly and comply
with a stringent reporting regime." The searches of the offices of Women of the Don were condemned by, among others, Mikhail Fedotov, chair of the Presidential Human Rights Council, and Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. As Rights in Russia has reported earlier, Valentina Cherevatenko believes that the prosecution may be related to the activities of her group in seeking to establish monitoring by civil society actors of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Amnesty International provide the following background on Women of the Don: "Women of the Don Union has worked tirelessly for over 20 years on a range of issues, from human rights to humanitarian relief
and peacebuilding, in Rostov Oblast and the neighbouring regions, including in the North Caucasus. It is one of the most highly
regarded and authoritative NGOs in Russia.
Women of the Don Union, and its sister organization Women of the Don Foundation for Civil Society Development (where
Valentina Cherevatenko is a member of the board), were declared “foreign agents” by the Ministry of Justice on 5 June 2014
and 27 October 2015 respectively.
Both Women of the Don Union and Women of the Don Foundation for Civil Society Development have challenged their
inclusion in the “foreign agents” register by the Ministry of Justice. On 29 February 2016 the Ministry of Justice officially
removed one of them, Women of the Don Union, from the register stating that the organisation "had stopped performing the
functions of a foreign agent".
Under Russian law a person investigated for a crime has the status of suspect until an indictment is issued against them at
which stage they are formally accused.
The “foreign agents law” has had a chilling effect on many organisations and civil society activists in Russia. Its aggressive
implementation by the authorities has resulted in a number of prominent NGOs choosing to close down, several more facing
bankruptcy for refusing to brand themselves “foreign agents” and being issued with heavy fines, and has disrupted the normal
work on hundreds of NGOs across Russia." Sources: 'Rights Group of the Week: Women of the Don,' Rights in Russia, 4 July 2016'NGO Head First Russian Charged Under "Foreign Agent" Law,' RFE/RL, 2 June 2017 'RUSSIAN FEDERATION: FURTHER INFORMATION: PROMINENT DEFENDER DECLARED CRIMINAL SUSPECT: VALENTINA CHEREVATENKO,' Amnesty International, 1 July 2016 'Russia launches its first criminal case against a nonprofit for evading the "law on foreign agents",’ Meduza, 28 June 2016 'Заведено первое уголовное дело за неисполнение закона об иностранных агентах,' Vedomosti, 28 June 2016Grigory Tumanov, 'В офисе организации «Женщины Дона» начались обыски,' Kommersant, 24 June 2016 'Глава СПЧ считает обыск в союзе "Женщины Дона" необоснованным,' RIA Novosti, 24 June 2016 Nils Muižnieks, Facebook 'Statement: "Drop unfounded criminal charges against Russian human rights activist Valentina Cherevatenko",' Rights in Russia [via Public Verdict Foundation], 17 May 2016 'Russia: Rights Activist Interrogated - First Criminal Inquiry in a "Foreign Agents" case,' Human Rights Watch, 18 May 2016 |
Legal Case of the Week: Aleksandr Shpakov
![]() Photo of Aleksandr Shpakov: from Dmitry Borko's Facebook page via Mediazona 'Дело 26 марта. Александр Шпаков,' Mediazona, 24 May 2017Sources: 'Russian Protester Jailed For 18 Months Over March 26 Rally,' RFE/RL, 24 May 2017 'Legal Case of the Week: Yury Kuly,' Rights in Russia, 22 May 2017 Vera Vasilieva, 'Human rights defenders fear a "Bolotnaya Square case-2",' Rights in Russia, 28 April 2017 |
Legal Case of the Week: Yury Kuly
![]() Earlier, the news webiste Mediazona reported that one of two witnesses who had given testimony in court against Yury Kuly was Aleksei Petrunko, an activist with a pro-Kremlin radical group, "who is suspected for attacking oppositionist leader Alexei Navalny with a brilliant green dye solution." Three other defendants have been charged with attacking law enforcement officers during the anti-corruption protest in Moscow on 26 March 26. Photo: OVD-Info Sources: 'Anti-Corruption Protester Jailed for 8 Months After Navalny's Moscow Rally,' The Moscow Times, 18 May 2017 'Man suspected of attacking Navalny testified against detainee in “March 26” case,' Mediazona, 12 May 2017 |
Legal Case of the Week: Ruslan Sokolovsky
![]() Sergei Nikitin, director of Amnesty International Russia, said: "While some may see Ruslan Sokolovsky’s comments on religion as disparaging, this alone is not enough to prosecute him. Sokolovsky came to the attention of the authorities only when he publicly challenged absurdly harsh Russian legislation that criminalized offending believers’ feelings. With Sokolovsky’s conviction, the Russian authorities send a strong message to anyone who wants to challenge the country’s grotesque ‘blasphemy’ law. Make no mistake, this is neither piety nor a genuine effort to protect the freedom of religion in Russia – especially coming after the authorities only last month banned Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is another assault on freedom of expression.” Following his arrest, Memorial Human Rights Centre recognized Ruslan Sokolovsky as a political prisoner. Aleksandr Podrabinek, a journalist and human rights defender, pointed out in an article that "The prosecutor in the trial of the case of Ruslan Sokolovsky [...] accused the defendant of not respecting the State. 'An expression of disrespect for the State is inadmissible,' Prosecutor Ekaterina Kalinina stated. Moreover, she accused Sokolovsky of “anti-constitutional 'attitudes' and 'ridiculing the Russian president.'" Aleksandr Podrabinek went on to ask: "What does any of this have to do with the law? [...] Why is a legal professional in court accusing a defendant of something that does not fall within the framework of the law?" Also commenting on the case, journalist and human rights defender Zoya Svetova, said in an article published before the conviction of Ruslan Sokolovsky: "The charge and criminal case against Ruslan Sokolovsky is the latest stupid joke bringing to mind what was far from the best time in Russian history. Ruslan Sokolovsky made this point in his final address to the court: ‘There was a time, long long ago, when people were sentenced to the camps for longer than three and a half years, for as long as ten, for telling obscene jokes about Stalin or communism. Today I am to be sentenced to three and a half years for an obscene joke about Russian orthodoxy and Patriarch Kirill. As far as I am concerned, this is simply savage and barbaric, I don’t understand how such a thing is possible. However, as can be seen, it is perfectly possible – a sentence of three and a half years is being asked for’." Photo of Ruslan Sokolovsky: Memorial Human Rights Centre Sources: 'Russian YouTuber convicted of blasphemy after playing Pokémon Go in a church,' Amnesty International, 11 May 2017'Russia: Pokemon Go Blogger Convicted. Set Aside Unlawful Verdict on Extremism Charges,' Human Rights Watch, 11 May 2017 'Александр Подрабинек: Откровенные времена,' Radio Svoboda, 9 May 2017 [translation by Rights in Russia: 'Aleksandr Podrabinek: Candid Times,' Rights in Russia, 9 May 2017' 'Zoya Svetova on the case of the vlogger Ruslan Sokolovsky: "A Feeling of Outrage" [Radio Svoboda],' Rights in Russia, 3 May 2017'ПЦ "Мемориал" считает видеоблогера Руслана Соколовского политзаключенным,' HRO.org, 5 December 2016 |
1-10 of 78