Written Statement of Human Rights First
Hearing on
“A Dangerous Slide Backwards: Russia’s Deteriorating Human Rights Situation”
before the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and
Global Women's Issues and the Subcommittee on European Affairs
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
Human Rights First commends you for hosting this joint hearing. It is especially useful that
Russia’s dangerous slide backwards is being considered as both a concern for U.S-Russia
relations and a matter of global concern for human rights, democracy, and women’s rights. This
written statement focuses on the human rights abuses stemming from Russia’s misuse of antiextremism laws.
Independent Russian citizens, civil society organizations, minority religious groups, journalists
and human rights defenders increasingly face growing legal and administrative restrictions,
official harassment, and non-state violence. The rise of hate crime attacks in the middle of past
decade prompted stronger law enforcement reaction to bias-motivated violence, yielding a
significant decrease in reported hate crime violence since the peak years of 2008-09. However,
those responsible for hate crimes continue to operate with relative impunity, although dozens of
skinheads and neo-Nazi sympathizers have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms in recent
years.
Since amending the electoral code in 2006, the Russian government gained the right to apply
anti-extremism legislation against candidates running for public office suspected of inciting
ethnic or national hatred. Although this legislation (popularly known as “Article 282”) was
adopted to address the problem of violent hate crimes that plagued Russia during the last decade,
in reality it is often misused and selectively applied against human rights defenders, independent
journalists, and political candidates. Since 2007, candidates from several opposition parties were
scrutinized, receiving official “warnings” and court warrants for allegedly “extremist” slogans or
platforms. In June 2011, the Supreme Court produced an official clarification stating that
criticism of politicians and officials may not be equal to extremism and that religious and social
groups can be safely criticized in political debates or scientific discussions. Applied in practice,
the clarification could considerably limit the misuse of anti-extremism in courts, as many such
cases revolve around criticizing political or religious authorities. Yet, regional courts continue to
ignore the Supreme Court’s recommendation.
Internet freedom in particular is threatened by Russia’s increased efforts to monitor,
investigation, and prosecute online speech. One nongovernmental group identified 500 cases of
restrictions on freedom of access to the Internet or persecution of Internet users for exercising
their right to freedom of expression in 2011. The government targets dissenters by placing
publications or media files on the federal list of banned extremist materials, which now stands at
more than 1,900 entries. The use or distribution of these texts, images, movies, or songs can lead
to warnings, fines, and incarceration. The law is misused against religious groups to ban
materials and persecute individual believers and religious leaders.
The most prominent example of Russia’s misuse of anti-extremism laws is the politically
motivated and media-dominating trial of three members of Pussy Riot who performed an antiPutin “punk prayer” at Moscow’s Christ the Savior cathedral in February. For this nonviolent act
lasting 40 seconds, Yekaterina Samutsevich, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, and Mariya Alyokhina
were convicted under article 213 (part 2) of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred or
hostility” and sentenced to two-year imprisonment each. Samutsevich was subsequently released
as she received a suspended sentence with a two-year probationary period. Hooliganism statues
are often used to prosecute violent hate crimes, including those committed by neo-Nazi
skinheads, whose heinous racist murders have been previously referred to as “hooligans” by state
authorities and are the origin for the criminal statute’s title.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Mariya Alyokhina, both young mothers, are currently housed in
separate labor colonies where they are closely watched by the authorities. Tolokonnikova’s early
release appeal was denied in April 2013, and Alyokhina was not even permitted to present her
case to the judge in person and joined her early release hearing via a poor-quality
videoconference. After the release was denied, Alyokhina went on a ten-day hunger strike to
protest the poor prison conditions and her inability to receive mail, phone calls, and visitors.
Both women are serving time beside dangerous criminals. Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, whose
failing health has been of concern since she was in pre-trial detention last year, is housed in the
same penal colony as Yevgeniya Khasis, who was convicted for her part in the heinous murder
of lawyer and rights advocate Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova, who were
gunned down in downtown Moscow in broad day light in 2009.
Following the initial trial that sent members of Pussy Riot to jail, the group’s videos and
materials were declared “extremist” and banned in Russia by a Moscow City Court. Failing to
block the footage may result in fines up to $3,000 for internet providers. Though most Russians
are still able to access the banned materials on foreign servers, the ban on broadcasting Pussy
Riot’s performance videos, lyrics, and materials placed further restrictions on media outlets and
bloggers interested in writing about the controversial case. In a similar vein, a behind-the-scenes
ruling by a District Court in Orenburg had banned as “extremist” 65 religious and historic books
issued by almost all Islamic publishers in Russia—like Pussy Riot, religious groups did not have
an opportunity to defend their work in courts and found out about the ban post-factum.
Hundreds of thousands of people joined international campaigns for Pussy Riot last year because
in a country that calls itself modern individuals aren’t sent to jail for two years for staging a
nonviolent protest against political and religious leaders. Not only did the punishment not fit the
crime—there simply was no crime. The impact of this case continues to rattle Russia’s
commitments to rule of law and fundamental rights, as the full-blown legislative assault on
Russia’s own constitution has led to further restrictions on public protests, nongovernmental
organizations, and internet freedom.
The trial of Pussy Riot followed a model seen in other proceedings for extremism cases. In 2010,
Yury Samodurov, a human rights activist, and Andrey Erofeev, a museum curator, faced
criminal prosecution for organizing an exhibition entitled “Forbidden Art 2006” at the Andrei
Sakharov Museum. A Moscow District Court found Samodurov and Erofeev guilty of inciting
religious hatred and fined them 200,000 and 150,000 rubles.
In another example, Maxim Efimov, a blogger and chair of a youth human right group in
Karelia, is currently facing extremism charges and even hospitalization for his comments critical
of the Russian Orthodox Church and has sought asylum in Estonia. Efimov’s case was not the
first time a blogger faced extremism charges, but his situation was unique due to the
government’s attempts to place Efimov in a mental hospital to undergo a psychiatric
evaluation—a not uncommon practice used in the Soviet Union to pressure to pressure
dissidents, religious activists, and opposition leaders.
The anti-extremism laws are often misused against religious groups to ban materials and go after
individual believers and religious leaders. This particularly affects members of so-called
“nontraditional” religious movements such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, or
followers of Muslim theologian Said Nursi. While believers are imprisoned and religious texts
are banned as “extremism,” these communities are fighting back by seeking justice at the
European Court of Human Rights where they regularly win cases against the Russian Federation.
In addition, the State Duma has adopted a bill that makes offenses against religion punishable by
up to three years in prison. Widely criticized by the public and civil society groups and labeled as
a “Pussy Riot Bill” or a “blasphemy law,” the legislative measure further blurs the line of
church-state relations and creates an additional mechanism of selectively persecuting religious
minorities and critics of the government’s policies on religion or its relationship with the Russian
Orthodox Church.
In multiple regions of the Russian Federation, laws prohibiting so-called “propaganda of
homosexuality to minors” have been adopted by legislators, enabling discriminatory restrictions
on the fundamental freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI)
individuals and organizations. A federal bill seeking to institute fines for the promotion of
“nontraditional sexual relations” currently awaits President Putin’s signature. Unanimously
approved by the State Duma, the vaguely defined, prone to abuse bill makes it possible, among
other things, to detain and deport foreign citizens convicted of the offense. The federal bill builds
on the success of discriminatory regional legislation passed in 10 regions of Russia, including the
city of Saint Petersburg.
In addition to the discriminatory laws, the Russian government has continued to deny freedom of
assembly and association to gay rights activists, banning gay pride parades and events in
multiple cities and denying registration to groups seeking to confront homophobia and promote
tolerance and nondiscrimination. In October 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued a
verdict affirming that the 164 bans on gay pride marches and events between 2006 and 2008
were in violation of the constitutionally protected right to freedom of assembly. In April 2011,
the ECHR decision in Alekseyev v. Russia came into force after the Russian government lost its
appeal in Strasbourg.
Despite the European ruling in favor of gay rights activists, a District Court in Moscow has since
issued a ruling banning gay pride parades in the city until May 2112, and city authorities banned
further attempts to host a parade in Moscow. Additionally, in 2011, the Pervomai District Court
of Krasnodar, Russia, upheld a Krasnodar Ministry of Justice verdict denying registration to
Sochi Pride House—a civil society group that, like many advocacy organizations of many
different causes, sought to capitalize on the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi to
promote tolerance in sports. The court’s ruling against Sochi Pride House stated that
“propaganda of nontraditional sexual orientation” is a direct threat to the Russian society, while
calling attempts to confront homophobia “extremist” because they inherently “incite social and
religious hatred.”
The government’s control of media is also increasing. Roskomnadzor—a special federal agency
tasked with monitoring all media activities—routinely issues “warnings” to newspapers and
internet sources suspected of publishing extremist materials. Two warnings in one year are
enough to file a closure lawsuit. The real impact of this practice is hidden because journalists and
editors, although never prosecuted directly, tend to censor their own articles out of fear of future
problems.
In the foreground of these cases and legislative developments, a new law requires all Russian
nongovernmental organizations funded from abroad and engaged in broadly defined “political
activity,” to register as “foreign agents” starting January 1. The law undermines the ability of
civil society organizations to fundraise internationally, and has already led to sweeping
government raids on NGO offices, with administrative complaints filed against several
prominent groups and official warnings issued to dozens others, in an attempt to discredit civil
society organizations before the general public.
Though challenges in working with the Kremlin are mounting, an isolated and adversarial Russia
could have disastrous consequences for U.S. national interests. In the current atmosphere in U.S.Russian relations, human rights groups are relegated to rallying behind individual cases of abuse
and hoping that the Russian authorities will listen, and do the right thing. The U.S. government
must do what it can to elevate these efforts and do its part to keep the pressure on Russia to live
up to its own commitments and finally become a responsible and respected player in global
politics. It should start by elevating its own rigorous analysis of Russia’s human rights record
contained in the annual State Department reports on human rights practices, and convert it into
more robust public commentary directed at the Russian Federation.
To offset the damage caused by a hastened end to USAID’s presence in Russia in the fall of
2012, the Congress should act quickly to approve the administration’s $50 million request—first
made by President George W. Bush—to establish a Civil Society Fund for Russian NGOs. The
U.S. should also run a campaign through public diplomacy that describes America’s extensive
funding of economic, military, and nuclear projects in Russia, not only to reinforce the
importance of a partnership, but also to offset the stigmatization of NGOs by the “foreign
agents” act.
At present, the given the position of the U.S. right now, human rights advocacy in Russia also
requires coordination with our European allies. Human Rights First further recommends the
following objectives for both public and private diplomacy to improve the human rights
conditions in Russia:

The release of political prisoners and victims of the government’s misuse of antiextremism statues, including the members of Pussy Riot.

Protection of human rights defenders who continue to be subject to threats and
intimidation by promptly investigating all of previous attacks on activists, and by
effectively prosecuting all threats and intimidation against defenders in the country.

Amending ambiguous anti-extremism legislation to prioritize violent crime and to fulfill
Russia’s international obligations to protect freedom of expression, religion, and
assembly and association.

The guarantee of protection for all citizens wishing to peacefully exercise their rights to
freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

Implementation of constitutional and international norms guaranteeing freedom of
conscience and religion and nondiscrimination against any individual or group of
individuals based on their religion; and affirm publicly the equality before the law of
members of all religious communities and refraining from using rhetoric that divides
groups into “traditional” and “nontraditional.”
Thank you, Madam e Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, and for the
opportunity to submit a written statement. We look forward to any questions.