6th March 2013
Summary
On Wednesday 6 March, the Human Rights House Foundation together with CIVICUS, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Youth Human Rights Movement, the International Federation for Human Rights and the Civil Society and Freedom of Speech Initiative Center for the Caucasus hosted a side event titled "Criminalisation of Human Rights Defenders in the Russian Federation" at the United Nations in Geneva. 
The meeting, which was attended by over forty people, provided an opportunity for activists on the ground in the Russian Federation to testify about the real situation the country is in, showing the real face of a campaign of repression to silence independent voices. Moreover, the event offered a unique opportunity to discuss the devastating impact of the criminalisation of the work of human rights defenders in the Russian Federation, with the main purpose of addressing key areas of concern to be highlighted during the upcoming UPR examination of the Russian Federation, on Monday 29 April 2013.
The session featured a high level panel of experts including Anna Dobrovolskaya, Programme Coordinator at the International Youth Human Rights Movement; Abdulla Duduev, Executive Director of the Russian magazine DOSH; Boris Pustyntsev, Chair of Citizens’ Watch and Maria Kozlovskaya, Programme Manager from the Russian LGBT- Network. The panel was moderated by Florian Irminger, Head of International Advocacy and HRHF Geneva Office.
The whole event was carried out in a conducive atmosphere, there was a meaningful exchange of views between the panellists and the participants at the side-event. The spirit of the dialogue remained moderate, following the guidelines provided by the organisers. The general tone may have been a result of the fact that Russian Officials were in attendance.
The first speaker, Mr Pustyntsev, opened with a reading of his statement underlying the following points. For about a decade, the Russian authorities have been steadily trying to place the parliament, the courts, the press and the civil society under government control. They have succeeded in having a pocket parliament, servile courts and obedient majority of mass media. However civil society has, up to now, been able to withstand the pressure and continued to denounce the authorities for human rights violations.
The main assault on independent citizens’ groups happened after the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2011-2012. The authorities responded to massive protest rallies all over the country with a series of new repressive laws that actually suspended a number of constitutional rights. Concerning these laws, he called first the attention on the Anti-Magnitsky Act of 2012 that banned the adoption of children born in Russia by American families.
The “foreign agents” law was another outrage that the international community cannot ignore. According to this law, Russian NGOs receiving financial support from foreign foundations and, supposedly, involved in “political activities” must register with the Ministry of Justice as “foreign agents” acting under the influence and for the benefit of their donors. If an NGO refuses to register as a “foreign agent”, the sanctions provide for its liquidation and criminal prosecution for its managers who may be imprisoned for up to two years. This law leaves Russian NGOs no choice: if they refuse to register as foreign agents, they will be banned; if they do register and label themselves “foreign agents”, they will be totally discredited in the eyes of our target groups and clients and cease operating in any case.
Nevertheless, Mr Pustyntsev pointed out that “In these circumstances we would rather boycott the law than submit to it. If the anticipated repressions follow, we would fight them in national and international courts. We prefer to go down with colours flying thaN to assist the government in gross violations of the Constitution and Russia’s international obligations”.
A positive hint is that it has turned out that the law contradicts fundamental principles of legislation and, most likely, will not be applied, at least in its present form. In fact, in January 2013, the Russian Minister of Justice, Alexandr Konovalov, revealed to State Duma deputies that the new law “was against the spirit of the legislation on NGOs” passed in 2006.
In support of abolishing the abovementioned law, on 6 February 2013 eleven Russian NGOs submitted an official application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in which they confirmed that they would not renounce foreign sources of funding. The authors of the appeal wish that the Strasbourg court will conclude that there is a systemic problem and should suggest that Russia resolves it in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Duduev first focused his attention on the Russian Defamation Act which came into force in June 2012. Despite appeals for abolishment, the act was not modified and the text was adopted. The fine was increased and included a prison term: defamation in mass media can be fined up to 1 million roubles. A common fear is that this law will be used against journalists and bloggers who, according to the political elite, would paint “a negative picture of life in Russia”. Essentially, this Act puts public life under censorship. Moreover, most criminal proceedings are instigated by journalists and regional journalists are clearly more prone to risk than others. They are facing the abuses of this Act, plus, there is a principle of collective responsibility according to which families of journalists can also be held accountable. However the process is not perfect, the practice is not perfect either and sometimes the courts are pocketed.
The intervention of Ms Kozlovskaya was related to human rights defenders working on the rights of LGBTI people who also faced an escalation of intimidation and persecution in 2012. While national legislation is still in its draft phase, at least nine Russian provinces have adopted measures outlawing “homosexual propaganda”. The law intends to curb free speech and freedom of expression among LGBTI people rather than to protect minorities.
Accordingly, LGBTI rights activist Nikolai Alekseev was recently fined 4000 roubles for demonstrating against the governments’ illegalisation of LGBTI activism outside of City Hall in St. Petersburg, holding a sign that said “homosexuality is not perverted”.
Organizations dealing with LGBT people had to stop their work dealing with young people and they have to label their websites with parental advisory stickers. The fines are very high and can suspend activities for up to a year, especially individuals working with LGBT can be affected. Moreover, 17 people were detained for up to 6 hours for holding rainbow flags. They were fingerprinted and photographed as the police claimed they were using signs and symbols not permitted by the government.
Ms Dobrovolskaya stressed again that a lot of human rights violations, police abuse, enforced disappearances, and torture occur in the Russian Federation. Journalists, human rights defenders and civil society activists must protect themselves first. In particular, there are strict restrictions on freedom of assembly. In fact, the new law on freedom of assembly has huge fines for organisers of demonstrations. Last year there was a big mass demonstration organised in Moscow while peaceful protest is restricted. The protest became violent partly due to police intervention, however now the organisers of the protest are being accused of organising public chaos. Obviously, there are no fair trial guarantees.
The real problem is that homophobia becomes a state value and human rights become a bad word. A society where certain groups can be blamed or devalued is very destabilising and dangerous. Ms Dobrovolskaya pointed out the importance to make clear that human rights activists can work under any government, they just need the room to work, and they are not a political opposition.
Round table debate, questions and answers
Q - Is it time to engage with UN mechanisms on the protection of human rights? Do these laws affect every type of NGO or does it depend on the type of work?
Ms Dobrovolskaya - “socially acceptable” NGO work may not be affected but the law is so vaguely drafted, there is no way to know.
Mr Pustyntsev - they tried to drive a wedge between us but it did not work. Russian NGOs have presented a united front.
Mr Duduev - the law is arbitrarily applied and we have no idea what will trigger it.
Chair - what has been taking place? How far did the investigations go?
Mr Duduev - the criminal prosecutions for the killing of journalists have not gone very far, the most famous NGOs are also facing severe repression.
Ms Bloem, CIVICUS - we are in touch with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders in order to have more reports on the issue and we are following the resolution proposed by Norway very closely.
Mr Schaaf, Freedom House - do you think any other countries look to Russia about how to suppress human rights defenders.
Ms Innocenti, Human Rights House - there is some comment that this is a copy of the American Fair Act passed in 1938. The law is still active but has never been applied to none commercial organisations. The purpose of the law was to track anti-Nazi propaganda. We have not signed contracts with any of our donors. We are under the control of our mandates in the interest of the Russian people.
Ms Dobrovolskaya - Belarus is currently the leader but if the laws are passed in Russia they will be used in other countries. Russia is a very good student from Belarus law. We don’t copy the best practices from each other.
Q - Traditional values and freedom of expression.
Ms Kozlovskaya - these acts are used because the traditional values are compelling.
Ms Dobrovolskaya - the education system is increasingly being influenced by the church. Evolution is presented as a theory and not a scientific truth. There is a real threat to education by traditional values. Traditional values are used to legitimise the watering down of human rights protections.
Mr Pustyntsev - we are sure we are not involved in political activities but there is no definition of political activities so, who knows. If we monitor elections? If we insist that the police follow the constitution? Maybe we will be liquidated. Maybe we will be imprisoned. I have been imprisoned for political reasons before. It is high time that I try it again. But between us I think this law will be struck down. If there is solid international backing.
Ms Dobrovolskaya - an organisation applied for registration. The office said that human rights work is not a political activity. The Ministry of Justice did not start to bring this to force but the fact that the law exists is dangerous.
Russian LGBT Network- the situation is very different and the country has changed a lot. As far as I understand it, the de-criminalisation of libel was reintroduced during the 3rd term of Putin. Is there any difference? Do you think the current political situation resembles Soviet times?
Ms Kozlovskaya - in Moscow local authorities like to ban LGBT events and if an event takes place the homophobes who attack the events are not arrested. Even though the laws have not been applied the problem is that they might be.
Other points raised in the dialogue:
- There is a common understanding according that the rule of law won’t be established again in the Russian Federation. To prepare the UPR, we have to focus on it because to contact a nice delegate from Europe is not enough.
- Legislation on NGOs affects everyone but those who work for example for children’s security have some protection mechanisms. It means there is a selective application of the law and it is not clear what action would cause a reaction.
- Role of the local authorities. Regional authorities act differently. Example, what happened in Saint Pietersburg, local authorities ban all possible actions even just mentioning LGBT.
- The panellists underlined the event was their last call for the delegations in view of the UPR.