Johannesburg, 26 June 2012: Russia has taken a further step backwards on democratic freedoms by amending the administrative code on illegal public events to punish violations of rules through exorbitant fines, say CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation and Greenpeace Russia.
On 8 June 2012, President Putin signed into law controversial increases to existing penalties for violating rules on participation in and organisation of public protests. The new maximum penalty for participation in a protest that is not in accordance with government regulations is 300,000 rubles (approximately US$9,000) for individuals, while organisations face fines up to 1 million rubles (approximately US$32,000). The fine limits have been increased by 150 times for individuals and by 300 times for organisations.“The new restrictions will have a chilling effect on the freedom to protest peacefully,” says Ivan Blokov, Campaign Director of Greenpeace Russia. “Now, if two local activists stand in the streets carrying just a small banner saying ‘Stop Incinerators’ or ‘Save Lake Baikal’, they can be punished by a fine equal to or exceeding their monthly income. It’s perplexing that the government has chosen to target peaceful protests, but not wilful breaches of the law by their own officials.”
Dissidents and civil society activists complain that Russian authorities are in the habit of frustrating attempts to organise protests against the government by placing unreasonable conditions on organisers. Protest organisers found to have violated rules during past events are prohibited from organising such events in future.
The new restrictions will also apply if the number of the protestors exceeds the number notified to the authorities prior to the event. Further, public events that are not held in ‘specially designated’ areas will now require prior approval by the authorities, whereas the previous requirement was merely to notify the authorities. The wording of the changes also leaves wide scope for interpretation by judges and police officials, to the detriment of protestors.
Over the years, CIVICUS and Greenpeace have called attention to a steady deterioration of civil society space in Russia. Human rights defenders and environmental activists in particular face intimidation and threats on a regular basis. Activists are being persecuted across the country for peaceful acts of legitimate dissent against official policies. Some have also been subjected to physical attacks.
“This current action sees another attempt to muzzle genuine political debate and civil society freedoms in Russia,” says Katsuji Imata, Acting Secretary General of CIVICUS. “It’s a testing time for Russian people to see their rights being eroded in this way.”
Prior to large pro-democracy protests on 12 June, protest activists were questioned for hours by the police in a bid to frustrate their presence at the protests. Additionally, internet and satellite TV channel Dozd faced a denial of service attack by hackers, while the Novaya Gazeta newspaper’s site was rendered inaccessible.
The official justification being offered for the changes in the law is the need to control the ‘radicalisation’ of Russian society. But the changes raise urgent questions about the negative impact of enhanced penalties on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of peaceful assembly in Russia. It also calls into question the Russian government’s willingness to abide by international human rights standards, and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a party.
CIVICUS and Greenpeace Russia urge the Russian government to take steps to reverse the amendments to the administrative code on illegal public events and instruct law enforcement officials to desist from unwarranted interference with peaceful protests. At a minimum, the Russian state must guarantee civil society the following freedoms: freedom of association; freedom of expression; the right to operate free from unwarranted state interference; the right to communicate and cooperate; the right to seek and secure funding; and the state’s duty to protect.
