The criminal case against Maxim Smyshlyaev took place amid an ongoing anti-Ukrainian campaign in the state-owned media and in the statements of senior Russian government officials started in the spring of 2014. One of the components of this campaign is the initiation of criminal cases against citizens who publicly express different from official views on what was happening in Ukraine, or in any way connected with Ukraine. From the Memorial Human Right Center’s point of view, the criminal case against the leftist resident of Rostov-on-Don should be considered in the light of the anti-Ukrainian campaign.

Smyshlyaev’s political views are explicitly mentioned in the case documents (“… by his ideological and political views, he is an adherent of communist ideas and an opponent of the current authorities in the Russian Federation …”). The fact that the accused is “a supporter of left-wing ideology and an active opponent of the policy of the current authorities of the Russian Federation” is indicated in the decision of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Rostov-on-Don of June 2, 2016 as an argument confirming the need to extend the period of detention of Smyshlyaev in custody. The above allows us to talk about the presence of an obvious political component in the criminal case. The investigation tried to connect Panov with left-wing activists in the South of Russia so that one can talk about the existence of a connection between Russian opposition leaders and Ukrainian radical groups. So, on December 7, 2015, Daria Polyudova, who was recognized as a political prisoner by Memorial, was interrogated only because Panov’s account “Arthur Romberg” was listed in her VKontakte friends.

The materials of the case demonstrate convincingly that Smyshlyaev is innocent of having prepared an act of terrorism. The criminal investigation has no evidence that Smyshlyaev perceived his communications with the seventeen-year-old teenager as a preparation for acts of terrorism, and searches revealed that Smyshlyaev didn’t possessed any banned objects (weapons, explosive substances or parts of a short-barrelled sniper’s rifle). In practice, the investigation has relied exclusively on the fact that Smyshlyaev and Panov had been in communication initiated by the latter when he proposed to Smyshlyaev to take part in illegal activity.

Based on the criteria of the Memorial Human Rights Center, Maxim Smyshlyaev is a political prisoner due to the fact that imprisonment was applied due to his political views in violation of the right to a fair trial, other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the absence of corpus delicti.

Vladimir Domnin is a resident of Moscow with nationalistic views. He was charged in participating in the activities of an extremist organization (Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), undergoing training for participation in an illegal armed formation (Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and participation in such a formation (Part 2 of Article 208 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as in the illegal possession of weapons and ammunition (Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The charges against him are related to the fact that Vladimir allegedly joined the ranks of the Right Sector (which is banned in Russia), underwent military training, and then participated in the activities of the militarized structures of this organization in the anti-terrorist operation zone in eastern Ukraine, and also illegally kept a gun at home.

A political motive for the persecution of Domnin, in our opinion, is directly related to the official position of the Russian government on the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. On one hand, the Kremlin publicly denies its involvement in the conflict, on the other hand, the Russian authorities obviously take an anti-Ukrainian position. This has been expressed not only in statements by Russian officials and anti-Ukrainian propaganda in the media, but also in assisting pro-Russian armed groups in eastern Ukraine and in political persecution of Ukrainian citizens in Russia (Alexander Shumkov, Andrey Kolomiets, Alexander Marchenko, etc.) and Russian citizens who disagree with the ongoing Kremlin’s activities in Ukraine (cases of Denis Bakholdin, Daria Polyudova, Andrei Bubeev, etc.).

Vladimir Domnin pleaded guilty to keeping the gun. In the meantime, there is no indication in the documents of the criminal case that Domnin used weapons or was planning to use it for criminal purposes. Therefore, we believe that this accusation should not impede his recognition as a political prisoner in the remaining episodes.

• We consider Domnin’s guilt for other crimes imputed to him unproven. In fact, the three separate episodes in legal charges constitute the same crime, which is a flagrant violation of the basic legal principle, according to which “no one can be held criminally liable twice for the same crime” (Part 2 of Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
• Domnin’s actions do not constitute public danger, since they occurred on the territory of Ukraine and do not affect interests of Russia. The accused did not pose danger to the society after returning to Russian Federation, did not plan terrorist attacks or other criminal activities. On the territory of Ukraine, Domnin did not take direct part in hostilities: even according to investigators, while in the village of Maryinka, Donetsk Region, he “repeatedly went on guard … participated in the construction of fortifications, was engaged in recreational and economic activities … ensuring delivery of food and water supplies.”
• Domnin’s accusation of participation in the Right Sector is illegal, as this organization was recognized as extremist in Russia on the basis of extremely weak arguments amid gross violations of basic legal procedures.

The Memorial Human Rights Center, according to the International Guidelines for the Definition of a “Political Prisoner,” considers Vladimir Domnin a political prisoner. We call for an end to his prosecution under Article 205.3, Part 2 of Article 208, and Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code, as well as conduct a thorough qualified investigation under Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code. We demand to investigate reports of violence against Domnin during his detention and violation of his rights in prison.

Vladimir Lapygin, a scientist who devoted a half of a century to his country’s rocket construction industry, was detained by the FSB on May 13, 2015. According to the prosecution, Lapygin, who was a deputy head of the Center for Heat Exchange and Aerodynamics at the Central Engineering Research Institute of the Federal Space Agency Roskosmos, sent a Chinese scientist a file containing classified software for evaluating supersonic aerodynamics. On September 6, 2016 Lapygin was sentenced by the Moscow City Court under Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code (“treason”) to seven years in a strict-regime prison colony.

The trial took place in-camera. Vladimir Lapygin pleaded not guilty. He argued there was nothing criminal in passing on the test version of the software, and he did not hide his intention to sign a mutually beneficial contract on behalf of the Central Engineering Research Institute with the Chinese. He discussed this idea with his colleagues, as part of his official duties.

The court was presented with weighty evidence that the file given to the Chinese scientist did not contain state secrets. The independent experts who provided expertise during the investigation and the trial, according to the defense, were incompetent and had worked under pressure from the FSB. The defense had been denied a role in the selection of experts.

At the trial, prominent scientists and professors of physics and mathematics, and members of the Russian Academy of Sciences testified that there are many software programs similar to the test version which Lapygin sent to China, and that these have been published and are publicly accessible. The author of the software A. B. Gorshkov, himself a scientist at the Central Engineering Research Institute, spoke as a witness for the defense. He listed the sources that he used in his work, research and grants in the framework of which the software had been created, used and developed – none of which are classified and all of which have been published in open sources.

The scientists testified that the methods used to write software of this kind are well known and cannot constitute state secrets.

In February 2017, 23 scientists, including laureates of State Prizes, members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and colleagues of the convicted scientist, appealed to President Putin in an open letter to pardon Lapygin: “For a 76-year-old person who suffers from the consequences of two very serious road accidents, any term in a strict-regime prison colony is equivalent to a death sentence.”

In March 2017, Vladimir Lapygin himself submitted a request for a pardon to the President of the Russian Federation.

In October 2018, the Clemency Commission did not find again “circumstances significant to the application of the clemency act” and recommended that President Vladimir Putin reject the application of 78-year-old scientist Vladimir Lapygin.

The criminal prosecution of Vladimir Lapygin took place at virtually the same time as a number of other so-called “spy” and “treason” cases. We believe that law enforcement agencies specifically make use of these “spy” cases to strengthen their authority. In this manner, the FSB creates the appearance of working on matters of highest importance for the state, while individual officers are able to advance their careers and material well-being.

According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in 2016 14 people were convicted of treason under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A sharp rise in the number of such cases occurred in 2014. At that time, the number of people convicted of treason quadrupled in comparison with the preceding year, and since then has remained at approximately the same level. This is a consequence of conscious government policy and propaganda, creating a wartime atmosphere in society as the search for a “fifth column” and “enemies of the state” is ramped up. To maintain this atmosphere, new criminal cases are needed against “spies” and “traitors.” As a result, law enforcement agencies bring prosecutions on trumped-up charges, and citizens’ wholly legal activities are artificially criminalized.

The Memorial Human Rights Center considers Vladimir Ivanovich Lapygin a political prisoner. We demand his immediate release. We also demand that the officials responsible for his prosecution be brought to justice.

Originally, Aleksandr Orshulevich was charged under the Article 282.1, Section 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Creation of an extremist group’), while Igor Ivanov, Aleksandr Mamaev, and Nikolai Sentsov have been charged under Section 2 of the same Article 282.1 (‘Participation in an extremist group’). The three defendants – Orshulevich, Ivanov, and Mamaev – have been in custody since May 27, 2017. Sentsov has been in custody since September 27, 2017.

On January 30, 2017, the Kaliningrad Oblast prosecutor’s office sent Alexander Orshulevich, a head of the Baltic Avant-garde of the Russian Resistance, an official warning about the inadmissibility of extremist activity, in which it proposed taking organizational and practical measures to prevent further violations of the Law on Counteraction of extremist activity in the next two months. After that, Orshulevich resigned as the head of the BARS and left the organization.

However, on May 27, 2017, the investigative department of the FSB in the Kaliningrad Region opened a criminal case under the Part 1 of Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code (‘Creation of an extremist community’ – up to 10 years in prison) against the local nationalist Alexander Orshulevich. He was accused of organizing activities of an extremist community, which the security service declared to be “BARS”. According to the investigation, as set out in the protocol opening the criminal case, “the purpose for creating extremist community, determined by A. Orshulevich, was a violent seizure of power in Kaliningrad region through series of extremist crimes, including a secession of Kaliningrad region from the Russian Federation and its independent existence as a member of the European Union.”

In addition to Orshulevich, Igor Ivanov, who was the chairman of BARS since February 18, 2017, and Alexander Mamaev (father Nikolai), a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, were detained. They were charged under the Part 2 of Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (‘Participation in an extremist community’ – up to 6 years in prison).

On September 27, 2017, a resident of the city of Baltiysk, Kaliningrad Region, Nikoday Sentsov was detained. According to media, Sentsov was charged with participation in BARS and also alleged possession of military weapons.

On October 26, 2018, new information came out that the investigators re-qualified the charges to more serious crimes. Alexander Orshulevich is now charged under Part 1 of Article 205.4 (‘Organization of the terrorist community’, up to life imprisonment), Part 1 of Article 205.2 (‘Public calls for terrorist activities’, up to 5 years in prison), Part 1 of Article 280 (‘Public calls for extremist activities’, up to 3 years in prison), Part 3 of Article 222 (‘Illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of firearms, their main parts, ammunition committed by an organized group’, up to 8 years in prison), Part 3 of Article 222.1 (‘Illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of explosives or explosive devices committed by an organized group’, up to 12 years in prison) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Igor Ivanov and Alexander Mamaev are charged with the same charges, with the exception of Part 1 of Article 205.4 – they are charged under Part 2 of Article 205.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (‘Participation in the activities of the terrorist community’, up to 10 years in prison), and Nikolai Sentsov is accused only under Part 2 of Article 205.4, Part 3 of Article 222, and Part 3 of Article 222.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The criminal case was opened amid an ongoing anti-Ukrainian campaign in a state-owned media and in statements of high-ranking government officials since the spring of 2014. One of the components of this campaign is an initiation of criminal cases against citizens who publicly express a position on Ukraine different from official. Alleged members of the Kaliningrad nationalist monarchist organization BARS consistently held an anti-war position. In our view, the Russian authorities are especially intolerant of pro-Ukrainian sentiments among members of nationalist organizations. At the same time, the regional FSB and local authorities were irritated by oppositional nature of BARS, the organization’s cooperation with other opposition organizations, its participation in anti-Putin actions as well as demands for de-communization and renaming of the city of Kaliningrad to Königsberg.

In this criminal case, as in other similar cases, the accused are not charged with specific acts dangerous or harmful to a society, but with actions that have become crimes since they were carried out within a framework of a so-called “extremist association.” All participants and leaders of an association recognized as extremist, therefore, are collectively responsible for actions of all members of the community/organization, even if they themselves did not take any part in them.

The investigation of the case has been conducted with gross violations, and part of the evidence may have been falsified. According to relatives, in particular Orshulevich’s wife, Vanda, at the time of the searches and arrests law enforcement officers planted stencils with extremist slogans and cans of spray paint, and at the same time did not allow the accused to contact their lawyers. Orshulevich himself asserts that after his arrest a plastic bag was put over his head and he was tortured. The right to legal defense of the accused has been systematically violated.

So far as Aleksandr Mamaev (who, as a priest, is called Father Nikolai) is concerned, the defense asserts that he was not a member of BARS at all, despite the fact that he gave them spiritual guidance. As a monk and priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, he has been fiercely critical of the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill, something which, in the opinion of the Kaliningrad activists, could have been one of the reasons for his prosecution. Taking into account that the investigation has charged Mamaev with allegedly being the “spiritual leader of BARS,” it is possible to assert that he is being prosecuted in order to stop the lawful religious activity of a religious structure that represents an alternative to the Russian Orthodox Church. The investigation has not accused Mamaev and Ivanov of any illegal actions besides of taking part in BARS, which was a legal political organization, and allegedly preparing to draw extremist slogans on asphalt.

The Memorial Human Rights Center has studied the materials of the criminal case and has been convinced of the complete absurdity of the new qualification. The previous unsubstantiated accusations of organizing an extremist community were rewritten so that the investigation would have the opportunity to declare accused of terrorism.

The so-called “terrorist community” is charged with three episodes with allegedly prepared stencils, vandalism and five images posted on the VKontakte social network, as well as new charges that would perplex any person familiar with the concept of “terrorism”.

Note that the investigation did not discover any facts that the defendants planned to commit any real terrorist acts or use the above “arsenal” for committing violent crimes. According to the FSB, all this was necessary for training purposes. In other words, in this case, we see a continuation of a trend previously repeatedly reported by human rights defenders in 2014 and which intensified in 2017, when government critics s were regularly accused of creating terrorist and extremist associations without any serious proof. The fabrication of the case of another “terrorist community”, whose members are not accused of committing or preparing a single terrorist act, “but” accused of sticking leaflets and preparing extremist inscriptions on asphalt in our point of view is gross violence against the law and a sign of returning to repressive practices characterized the era of Stalin’s repressions.

The Memorial Human Rights Center, according to the International Guidelines for the Definition of a “Political Prisoner,” finds that this criminal case is politically motivated, aimed at retaining power by subjects of power and involuntarily terminating or changing the nature of the public activities of critics of power. The deprivation of liberty was applied solely in connection with the non-violent implementation of peaceful assemblies and associations, thought, conscience, and religion in the absence of corpus delicti, in violation of the right to a fair trial, other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Russia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Deprivation of liberty is clearly disproportionate (inadequate) to the actual actions of which they are charged.

UPDATE. On May 26, 2020, Sergei Filatov lost his appeal. His March 5, 2020, conviction and six-year prison sentence have been upheld. Judge Edward Belousov, of the Crimean High Court, presided. The hearing was held behind closed doors, due to virus-related restrictions. Sergei was “present” via video link from Detention Centre No.1 for Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

Filatov’s defense referenced a recent opinion by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Although primarily addressing the arrest and detention of 18 JWs in Russia, Filatov’s defense noted the strong language in the Working Group’s opinion that addressed the overall “issue of systematic and institutionalized persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses” (§78) in Russia:

§71. The Working Group is mindful that this is the third case concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia that has come before it over the past 12 months (see Opinions Nos. 11/2019 and 34/2019). All the 18 individuals named in the source’s communications have been charged with various forms of “extremist activities”. Yet, in view of the Working Group, none of the activities described could be construed as such. Moreover, neither has the Working Group been presented with nor can it establish itself any reasons that might justify the limitation of the rights of these 18 individuals under article 18 of the Covenant. The Working Group considers that all the activities that they engaged in were the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of religion under article 18 of the Covenant. These actions were the sole reason for the arrest of all the 18 individuals and the court proceedings against them.

§81. The Working Group observes that while this is the third case to come before its regular communications procedure on the situation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, numerous other such cases have been raised through the joint urgent action procedure by the Working Group and other UN Special Procedures (see paragraph 77 above). All these cases concerned the branding of peaceful religious activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses as “extremist activities” which has resulted in arrests and detentions of individuals belonging to this religious movement. Therefore, although the present Opinion concerns the particular circumstances of the named 18 individuals, the Working Group emphasizes that its findings in this Opinion apply to all others in similar situations.

During the appeal, the judge in Filatov’s case flatly rejected the defense’s motion to consider the Working Group’s opinion. The judge replied by saying that the Working Group’s opinion has “no judicial force” in the court, thus he upheld Filatov’s conviction and six-year prison sentence.

Sergei Filatov, a Jehovah’s Witness from Dzhankoy, was accused of organizing activities of an extremist organization, which, according to an investigation, consisted of “holding meetings, religious speeches, as well as promoting religious ideas.”

On February 25, at a hearing in the Dzhankoy District Court in Crimea, a prosecution requested seven years in a maximum security colony for Sergei Filatov, accused of organizing the activities of an extremist organization (Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

According to an investigation, Filatov “no later than October 13, 2017, carried out organizational activities aimed at continuing the unlawful activities of this organization (Local Religious Organization Jehovah’s Witnesses Sivash), consisted of holding meetings, religious speeches, as well as promoting religious ideas of this organization, using for this purpose a place of his residence.” The evidence presented by prosecutors includes an audio recording of a worship which, according to Sergei Filatov, was his family’s home prayers and Bible readings, and not a part of the liquidated organization’s activity.

Since November 15, 2018, Sergey Filatov has been under a house arrest.

Earlier, on February 11, 2020, prosecutors requested 6.5 years of prison for similar charges for another Jehovah’s Witness Artem Gerasimov in Yalta, Crimea. On the same day, police raided 6 other addresses of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crimea seizing documents and books including Bible, money, and electronics.

In April 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia as an extremist organization and formally liquidated it. In August of that year, all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were put on a list of banned extremist organizations.

On August 17, a court in the northwestern border town of Vyborg banned the Jehovah ’s Witness’ translation of the Bible labeling it extremist.

Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed the ban in the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the ECHR has received about 40 individual cases of violations of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rights by Russian authorities.

The Memorial Human Rights Center considers the designation of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organizations as extremist to be unjustified and in violation both of freedom of conscience and the right of association. The criminal prosecution of followers of this peaceful religion is unlawful and discriminatory.

The total number of Jehovah’s Witnesses currently being prosecuted for their faith in Russia has reached 206. The Memorial Human Rights Center considers that all Jehovah’s Witnesses held in custody or under house arrest to be political prisoners and urges their immediate release. The Memorial Human Rights Center demands that all charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses, on whom other forms of pre-trial restriction have been imposed, be dropped.