22 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia, Uncategorized
The Russian State Duma has decriminalised defamation, having passed amendments to the Criminal Code.
There are two major legislative threats to freedom of expression in Russia: libel and antiextremism legislation. Both are frequently abused to silence journalists, bloggers, opposition leaders — anyone critical of government policy or of influential businessmen.
Libel legislation in Russia used to include two types of penalties: criminal and civil. They were specified in the articles 129 and 130 of the Criminal Code and article 152 of the Civil Code.
Article 129 of the Criminal Code described both slander (deliberately falsified information denigrating the honour and dignity of another person or undermining his reputation) and libel (the same, but published or broadcast in mass media, etc). It stipulated punishment by a fine, or compulsory work (for a term of 120 to 180 hours), or corrective labour (for a term up to two years), or restraint of liberty (for a term up to three years) or arrest (for a term of three to six months), or deprivation of liberty (much like arrest, normally longer and with less harsh conditions; for a term up to three years).
Article 130 of the Criminal Code talked about “denegration of the honour and dignity of another person, expressed in indecent form”. The insult is punishable by a fine, or by compulsory works (for a term of up to 180 hours), or by corrective labour (for a term of up to one year).
The article 152 of the Civil Code — “Protection of the Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation” specified the citizen’s right to claim through court the information he considered discrediting be refuted, unless the one who spread it proved it was true. The citizen also has the right to claim compensation of the losses and the moral damage.
Before the amendments become operative one still has the right to file two defamation suits at a time: a criminal and a civil one. According to Russian law, the failure in civil proceedings on defamation doesn’t affect one’s rights to carry on criminal proceedings. This is often misused by those who fight freedom of expression advocates in Russia: criminal investigation they seek is apt to include confiscation of journalists’ data carriers.
The other amendment lawmakers passed concerned threats and violence against journalists and demanding journalists’ equipment. These crimes will be punished by a prison term of up to six years or corrective labour for a term of five years.
Together with defamation decriminalisation, this amendment was hailed by many human rights activists in and outside Russia. Still some scepticism remains: amendments don’t eradicate corruption in Russian judicial and law enforcement system, which doesn’t guarantee that journalists will not be persecuted, beaten and killed. Particularly it doesn’t assure that murders and assaults of journalists which took place in post-Soviet Russia will be finally investigated into, rights activists say. Anna Politkovskaya’s murderers, or people who almost beat Mikhail Beketov and Oleg Kashin to death, have not yet been identified, let alone punished.
21 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia
Russian journalist Maxim Shaligin, a presenter on pro-government radio station Voice of Russia has been fired for criticising the outgoing president of South Ossetia.
Maxim Shalygin was sacked on 14 November, just ten minutes before his show was due to begin. He and his colleagues say he was discharged after speaking out against South Ossetia president Eduard Kokoity.
“Why do you let spin doctors with doubtful reputation rule the country and actually supervise presidential elections,” Maxim Shalygin appealed to Kokoity on the air. He expressed an opinion that Kokoity supported Kremlin favourite candidate Anatoly Bibilov,in the ongoing presidential election.
Voice of Russia head Andrey Bystritsky refuted the allegation of firing Shalygin because of the criticism he subjected Kokoity to. He told journalists Shalygin was a “freelancer who never could be discharged de jure”. Bystritsky added Shalygin was no longer employed by Voice of Russia because he suddenly stopped fulfilling “creative requirements”.
Alexey Simonov, head of Russian human rights organisation Glasnost Defense Foundation said he was upset by both sides: Bystrytsky and Shalygin.
“If Shalygin didn’t meet Voice of Russia’s conditions, he wouldn’t have had access to live broadcast. Still, Shalygin appealed to Kokoity in a tone characteristic of spin doctors rather than journalists,” Siminov said.
The first round of presidential elections was held in South Ossetia — the self-declared state in South Caucasus — on 13 November. The second round will be held on 27 November. The two main competitors are Anatoly Bibilov, whom political scientists consider pro-Kremlin, and local opposition leader Alla Jioyeva.
18 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia
Vladimir Osechkin, 30, has become one of Russia‘s most successful freedom of expression advocates.
The former businessman fell foul of Moscow’s regional authorities in 2007, Osechkin claims he was asked to pay numerous bribes after he began building one of the biggest automobile sales centres in the area. He reported these extortion attempts to the prosecutors office. Controversially Osechkin was then charged with fraud, a claim he believes was trumped up to punish him for refusing to pay bribes. He was detained for almost four years in Mozhaysk pre-trial prison. It is worth noting that since Osechkin’s 2007 arrest, many of his accusers have faced criminal suits and corruption accusations.
When Osechkin was released on parole in June 2011 he had two goals: exoneration and to fight for prisoners’ rights, namely their freedom of expression.
He began by creating Gulagu.net (“no to GULAG”), where prisoners’ relatives, attorneys and penal system workers could register and post details of violence in prisons and suggest ways to confront abuse. The information provided can then be investigated by Russian prosecutors.
It is common that prisoners’ voices cannot be heard outside prison, Osechkin explains. Prison authorities often tear up prisoners’ written complaints in front of them and resort to beating those who dare complain. In August 2011 inmates in Mozhaysk were beaten and refused appropriate medical care. Records of their complaints of cruel treatment were allegedly destroyed by prison authorities so that no investigation would be launched.
This led to Osechkin’s first major campaign. Alongside inmates’ relatives, a whistleblowing prison staffer called Alexey Ivanov, turned to Osechkin for legal assistance and help publicising their plight. Osechkin published their evidence on gulagu.net and convinced other prison staff and former inmates to come forward. He sheltered Ivanov, who was threatened by his bosses after he gave evidence to prosecturos, and sent the statements detailing other allegations of abuse he had received to the Moscow region’s Prosecutor’s Office and Investigative Committee.
The result was outstanding. An investigation was launched, prison head Vyacheslav Melnik was removed from his position, the beating and physical abuse of prisoners ended and inmates were given a chance to complain to prosecutors, who began prison inspections.
Osechkin says that, while Russian non-governmental supervisory committees also conduct prison checks and are required to report on and investigate prisoners’ rights abuses, they frequently turn into circus shows. Supervisors are told how perfect the prison is and inmates are often threatened physical violence for expressing their concerns. Once supervisors accepted two iPhones from one of Russian big prison’s deputies, Osechkin recalls. Having been caught on the prison’s video cameras, the supervisors would likely face a bribery accusation if they were to report inmates’ rights abuses.
The Mozhaysk Investigative Committee is due to make a decision about filing a criminal case against the prison head and his deputies. If it files the case, Osechkin’s struggle for prisoners’ freedom of expression may well trigger real change in the Russian penal system.
If not, there is one thing he has achieved permanently: he has created an online space where all Russian prisoners’ complaints about brutal treatment can be documented without fear of censorship.
16 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, News
After speaking out against corruption, the young lawyer was left to die in jail. Two years on, says Jamison Firestone, no one has been brought to justice
(more…)
