Sergei Surovtsev, a 30-year-old IT professional, was detained on November 28, 2019. He was charged under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code (non-dangerous violence against a government official). According to investigators, Surovtsev raised a metal object taken from a riot-control fence and “hit” the fingers of Alexander Ostroverkhov, a Russian Guard, with it causing him physical pain.

On December 24, Tverskoy court in Moscow sentenced Surovtsev to two and a half years in a general regime prison.

The Memorial Human Rights Center believes that Sergei Surovtsev is being persecuted for political reasons in connection with a non-violent exercise of his right to freedom of peaceful assembly. According to international guidance, Surovtsev is a political prisoner. We are requesting to drop all the charges and release Sergei immediately.

Why Memorial Human Rights Center considers Sergei innocent:

The video recording of Sergei Surovtsev’s “crime” shows that, being in a crowd of demonstrators trying to get to the Moscow City Hall, he took up the fence section with which the security forces blocked the sidewalk. Raising this barrier, Surovtsev began to move quickly with it towards to a chain of Russian Guards. The servicemen put their hands forward and grabbed the fence. After this, Surovtsev fled. This entire episode lasted less than 10 seconds.

It is obvious that Surovtsev did not inflict a deliberate blow to the fingers of officer Ostroverkhov.

The “victim” did not receive any, even minor, injuries, and did not pay much attention to this incident that day, which he reported to the court. The victim did not seek medical help. His words that he experienced physical pain were no longer confirmed.

Representatives of the Memorial Human Rights Center were at the scene of the July 27 events. They have documented and examined in detail all available records of protests and “clashes” between the demonstrators and security forces. Based on this expert assessment, the Memorial Human Rights Center has determined that the demonstration on July 27, 2019 was peaceful.

According to Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, freedom of peaceful assembly is one of the most important civil rights; and it is the duty of authorities to facilitate organization of such events to ensure public safety. However, on July 27, 2019, Russian authorities did the opposite: they attempted to prevent a peaceful action, worked to disperse it, and detained about 1,500 participants using disproportionate violence. Unlawful obstruction of a rally, demonstration or assembly is punishable under Article 149 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for up to three years of prison.

Why Memorial Human Rights Center considers the persecution politically motivated

We are confident that the authorities are conducting this criminal case in order to put pressure on potential participants of street protests, to intimidate them and prevent such actions in the future.

It is also clear that the sentences against oppositional activists had been determined in advance prior to their actual arrests. It was public statements by the Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin and Putin’s Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov who claimed that “mass riots” had occurred in Moscow, that served as calls to action. These statements were an implicit order to the Russian law enforcement and judiciary.

State television and other pro-government media outlets dutifully complied and started producing reports of the alleged “riots.” They claimed simultaneously that protesters were criminals, sponsored by the West, “nonresidents” (implying that they were not Muscovites and therefore their rights were not violated by the exclusion of independent candidates for the Moscow City Assembly elections).

The fact that accusations from several people were dropped under public pressure confirms that they were based not on the law, but on the political order by the authorities.

Charges against the Penza antifascists

Dmitry Pchelintsev and Ilya Shakursky have been charged with setting up an organization called the Network (Set’), which according to the investigators is a terrorist and anarchist association and was later banned in Russia (part 1 of Article 205.4 of the Russian Criminal Code). Maksim Ivankin, Vasily Kuksov, Mikhail Kulkov, Arman Sagynbayev, and Andrei Chernov have been charged with membership of this organization (part 2 of Article 205.4 of the Russian Criminal Code).

In addition, Pchelintsev, Shakursky, and Kuksov have been charged with illegal possession of weapons and ammunition (part 1 of Article 222 of the Russian Criminal Code), while Ivankin, Kulkov, and Chernov have been charged with an attempt to sell a large amount of drugs (part 3 of Article 30, in conjunction with Point «g» of part 4 of Article 228.1 of the Russian Criminal Code).

Shakursky has also been charged with illegal possession of explosives (part 1 of Article 222.1 of the Russian Criminal Code). Pchelintsev has been accused of trying to destroy property motivated by hooliganism (part 3 of Article 30, in conjunction with part 2 of Article 167 of the Russian Criminal Code).

Maksim Ivankin and Mikhail Kulkov were arrested on 4 July 2018, the rest have been held on remand since the fall of 2017. None of the defendants has a previous criminal record.

Why we believe the charges related to the banned Network have been fabricated and politically motivated

• There are testimonies revealing that the defendants and at least four witnesses in this case were subjected to torture. The use of torture by the investigators of the case became one of the main instruments during the investigation on this criminal case. Torture of the St. Petersburg defendants Viktor Filinkov, Yuly Boyarshinov, and Igor Shishkin has also been documented by the Public Oversight Commission. The Network case in both Penza and St. Petersburg has been exclusively built on testimonies obtained under torture. All the ‘self-incriminatory statements’ obtained by this means should be inadmissible in court and cannot be used as evidence.
• This case is an example of facts being tweaked operational and investigative officers from the Penza FSB to fit their conspiracy theories. Their description of training, responsibilities and the structure of the Network, presented at the trials in Penza and St. Petersburg, looked much more like information about a group of strike ball players. The accusations that a small group of young people with left-wing views, living in Penza, were seriously deciding to violently overthrow the current political regime in Russia are extremely unrealistic.
• Evidence gathered by the investigation and presented during the trial that began on May 14, 2019 in the Volga District Military Court, is extremely unconvincing and consists of classified testimonies of witnesses who are either hostile to the defendants or who wish to avoid prison, two pistols planted during the initial arrest and search, one improvised explosive device, doctored telephone conversations recordings, and documents of the ‘terrorist group’ which were crudely fabricated from a correspondence of young women who had anarchist views.
• The defendants were in fact not accused of having committed any real terrorist actions or attempts to commit such actions. All the crimes they were allegedly going to commit according to the investigators did not have a concrete date or a timeframe. Moreover, initially the FSB asserted that the participants of the Network had prepared to carry out acts of terrorism during the FIFA World Cup in the summer of 2018. However, the final charges contained no mention of this. Even those defendants who pleaded guilty stated that the purpose of the training and joint activities of the Network was nothing other than self-defense in case of attack by radical nationalists during possible disturbances, and not preparation to seize some buildings or any other terrorist acts.
• Maksim Ivankin and Mikhail Kulkov have also been charged with drug trafficking. They pleaded guilty to these crimes in court. Yet, this cannot prevent them being recognized as political prisoners on groundless charges of terrorism. At the same time, we believe that these episodes must also be objectively investigated because of the violation of Ivankin’s and Kulkov’s rights during the preliminary investigation. There is a strong possibility that the charges against Chernov under Article 228.1 of the Russian Criminal Code were fabricated given that he was charged almost a year after his detention and the investigators gained access to the smart phone found on him at the time of arrest. Neither his fingerprints nor other biological traces were found on the packets containing drugs.
• It is obvious that the prosecution of the antifascist activists in Penza, is a part of ongoing repressive measures against anarchists and anti-fascists that sharply increased in 2017–2018 and politically motivated. The authorities cultivate the image of anarchists as people who are related to terrorism and seek to destabilize society and the political system. Moreover, the detained anarchists have been routinely and blatantly tortured. At the same time, all informal self-organizations that have not been sanctioned or launched by the government, especially organizations of young people, have been closed down.

Others prosecuted for participation in the banned Network organization are also political prisoners

• Earlier the Memorial Human Rights Centre recognised two of the three defendants in the St. Petersburg case of the Network – Yuly Boyarshinov and Viktor Filinkov – as political prisoners. We believe their charges to be trumped up. After studying their cases, we found no evidence that their actions constituted any danger to the public.
• The third defendant in the St. Petersburg case, Igor Shishkin, had pleaded guilty to all charges. As we believe that the Network case is a complete fabrication, we consider that Shishkin, convicted only of participating in the Network, must also be recognized as a political prisoner.

On March 7, 2018, he was released from custody, having been sentenced to two years of probation with a trial period of three years. On December 4, 2019, the Reutov City Court changed the punishment for Galperin from suspended sentence to one year and six months in a penal colony. The court’s decision has made Memorial Human Rights Center to add Galperin to the list of political prisoners for the second time. We demand his immediate release.

The court based its decision to change the suspended sentence to a prison time for Mark Galperin on a number of Galperin’s administrative offences. In recent months, Galperin has been arrested twice for a 30-day term. The first time it was when the opposition activist was arrested for calls to participate in a protest unapproved by the authorities in support of independent candidates to the Moscow City Duma on July 27, 2019. For the second time, the activist was detained for participating in an unsanctioned march against political repression on August 31, 2019.

Obviously, those arrests were unlawful since those events were absolutely peaceful. It should be reminded that the right to freedom of assembly is enshrined in the Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The fact that the authorities refused to coordinate with organizers a place, time and procedure for their demonstration does not give grounds to consider events and participation in them an offense. Moreover, it is unacceptable to deprive of liberty for that. However, Galperin received a real prison term of one and a half years. The court took into account the time that the activist spent under the house arrest.

We believe that the ongoing persecution of Mark Galperin is connected with his active non-violent opposition and criticism of the authorities. We demand his immediate release.

In 2018, Mark Galperin, a founder and a leader of the organizations called New Opposition and For a Change of the Government, had been charged with an offence under Article 280 (Section 2) of the Russian Criminal Code (public incitement to extremist actions in the Internet, punishable by up to five years in prison). According to the FSB, in two videos Mark Galperin called on Russians to change their government by violent means.

The phrases that the investigators consider, in particular, to be criminal in nature are: «I urge everyone to come out on to the streets and [join the] struggle;” «We must come together in the streets and train for confrontations of that kind, there will be confrontations with the riot police, and then there will be confrontations with the National Guard, and finally we shall win;” «I urge [people to take part] in a democratic revolution;” «I urge [people to] throw out those in the Kremlin over the Kremlin wall.”
We consider that these statements by Mark Galperin do not constitute incitement to violence or to actions of an extremist nature.

For example, in the words, «there will be confrontations with the riot police, with the National Guard,” there is clearly no incitement to attack officers of these law enforcement agencies. As a rule, in contemporary Russia, confrontations of this kind occur during the illegal dispersal by law enforcement agencies of lawful public events organized by the opposition. The phrase, «I urge [people to] throw out those in the Kremlin over the Kremlin wall,” cannot be interpreted as a direct incitement to physically throw those people inside the Kremlin over the 19-meter-high brick wall. The author, evidently, is using the words «throw out» in a figurative sense, having in mind their removal from positions of authority.

Calls to take part in a democratic revolution, to join mass public demonstrations, to change the government, or to overthrow the president and the cabinet, without a direct indication that this should be done by means of violence through an armed attack on people, are not unlawful and cannot be considered criminal offences.

Memorial Human Rights Center considers that the prosecution of Mark Galperin to be related to his active engagement in non-violent opposition and his criticism of the government. Mark Galperin is a political prisoner.

The reason for the persecution was a message from Vladislav on Twitter. Human rights activists considered the tweet inappropriate and incorrect, but did not find in it arousal of hostility and hatred towards law enforcement officials.

The harsh and sometimes brutal actions of law enforcement agencies during protests in Moscow this summer sparked by a ban for independent candidates to run in the Moscow City Duma elections, caused public outrage. The response was spontaneous initiatives to deanonymize especially “distinguished” police officers. We believe that Vladislav Sinitsa has become an indicative victim of a struggle of special services with deanonymization, and his case is an indicative and most repressive one.
On July 31, 2019, in his posting Sinitsa wrote: “They could look at their happy family photos, study the geolocations and then the child of a brave law enforcement officer simply doesn’t come home from school. Instead of a child, the mail brings a CD with a snuff video.” The message on behalf of “Max Steklov” was intended for an anonymous user “Voice of Mordor”, who was interested in how <supporters of the deanonymization of police officers and riot police, who had used illegal violence against protest rallies>, were going to revenge them.

Most Internet users who discussed the brutal crackdown on protests in Moscow gave a negative moral assessment of the Sinitsa’s tweet. Memorial Human Rights Center also considers the blogger’s statements inappropriate and incorrect, even considering their emotional context. However, from a legal point of view, a Twitter post does not contain clear signs of inciting hostility and hatred towards law enforcement officials. Mention of the possibility of kidnapping and shooting a snuff video does not contain calls for such actions. The Twitter post was a comment on a tweet of an anonymous user which means it did not contain the intent to appeal to a potentially wide circle of users.

Having studied materials of the criminal case, as well as publications related to it, we came to a conclusion that a verdict to Vladislav Sinitsa is illegal and politically motivated:

• A pro-government media has launched a large-scale information campaign against Vladislav Sinitsa;
• The case experts prepared a report in just a few days. Previously, these experts have already consulted in politically motivated cases; also, they have extremely dubious qualifications;
• Only one month has passed from a day of the detention to sentencing (which is unusual for Russian justice system where people wait for their trials for months and years);
• The trial itself lasted for only one day;
• Sinitsa was given the maximum possible prison sentence under this article of the Criminal Code.

All this confirms the coordinated nature of actions of law enforcement agencies and judicial system, not just supported, but inspired at a political level.

Given all of the above, the Memorial Human Rights Center, according to international guidelines for a definition of a “political prisoner,” finds this criminal case politically motivated and aimed at retaining the power by the authorities and forcibly terminating the public activities of Vladislav Sinitsa. We believe that a deprivation of liberty was used in violation of the right to a fair trial.

The Memorial Human Rights Center considers Vladislav Sinitsa a political prisoner and demands his immediate release. We also demand an investigation into the circumstances of the case, checking the possibility of coercion of RosGvardia employees to give false testimonies by their management, checking the activities of the Center for Sociocultural Expertise ANO and statements about the case of the head of the RosGvardia Viktor Zolotov.

Here is the summary of their cases and the sentences as well as the reasons why the man are recognized as political prisoners:

Yegor Zhukov, 21, charged for “calls for extremism via the internet”. Zhukov is an opposition activist and vlogger. He is a student of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He was charged under Part Two of Article 280 (‘Public appeals for extremist activities, using the Internet’) as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Yegor Zhukov was sentenced to three years of probation. Also, Zhukov was barred from managing websites for two years. Prosecutors asked the court to hand Zhukov a four-year prison sentence.

Nikita Chirtsov, 22, accused of pushing a police sergeant, causing him pain. Chirtsov is a programmer. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Nikita Chirtsov was sentenced to one year in prison. Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Chirtsov to three years and six months in prison.

Pavel Novikov, 32, charged with throwing a plastic bottle at a police officer. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Pavel Novikov was fined 120,000 rubles ($1,880). Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Novikov to three years in prison.

Vladimir Emelyanov, 27, accused of grabbing a police officer’s uniform. Emelyanov is an orphan who works as a merchandiser and lives with his 74-year-old grandmother and 94-year-old great-grandmother. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Vladimir Emelyanov was sentenced to two years of probation. Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Yemelyanov to four years in prison.

Yegor Lesnykh, 34, charged with police assault as part of an organized group over pushing an officer down together with Martintsov and Mylnikov as well as kicking another officer. Lesnykh is an interior decorator, straight-edger and antifascist. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Yegor Lesnykh was sentenced to three years in prison. Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Lesnykh to four years in prison.

Maxim Martintsov, 27, charged with police assault as part of an organized group over pushing an officer down together with Lesnykh and Mylnikov. Martintsov works in a laboratory and lives in Moscow. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Maxim Martintsov was sentenced to two years and six months in prison. Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Martintsov to three years and six months in prison.

Aleksandr Mylnikov, 32, accused of knocking National Guard officer down and together with Martintsov kicked him. He was charged under Part One of Article 318 (‘Use of force against a public official’) of the Russian Criminal Code as a protester who took part in the manifestation in central Moscow on July 27, 2019. Aleksandr Mylnikov was sentenced to two years of probation. Prosecutors requested the court to sentence Mylnikov to three years in prison.

The video footages show that Emelyanov, Lesnykh, Martintsov and Mylnikov without weapons or improvised objects tried to stop the violence that the security forces used on a woman and a man lying on a ground. In response, they were beaten with rubber batons.

Pavel Novikov punched a riot police officer twice with a filled bottle on a helmet and armored shoulder pad. The video published by the Investigative Committee of Russia shows that the police officer did not fall, did not step back, did not bend.

According to the materials of the case, “injured” security officials did not have any injuries, even minimal scratches. The fact that they experienced “physical pain” for an instant is unprovable. Prison sentences for such a “pain” is clearly contrary to law and common sense.

Also, we cannot consider the pushing of a police sergeant by Nikita Chirtsov an act of violence. Moreover, we must acknowledge that these incidents occurred spontaneously, and in response to the unlawful and disproportionate violence exercised by the security forces against the demonstrators.

Representatives of the Memorial Human Rights Center were at the scene of the July 27 events. They have documented and examined in detail all available records of protests and “clashes” between the demonstrators and security forces. They have also analyzed available criminal case materials. Based on this expert assessment, the Memorial Human Rights Center has determined that the demonstrations on July 27, 2019 were peaceful and non-violent. There were no riots in Moscow.

According to Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, freedom of peaceful assembly is one of the most important civil rights; and it is the duty of authorities to facilitate organization of such functions to ensure public safety. On July 27, 2019, Russian government authorities did the opposite: they attempted to prevent a peaceful action, worked to disperse it, and in the course, detained about 1,500 participants, using disproportionate violence. Unlawful obstruction of a rally, demonstration or assembly is punishable under Article 149 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
The Memorial Human Rights Center, further declares that the persecution of the July 27 protesters is politically motivated and seeks to intimidate protestors and discourage further expression of political opinion.

It is also clear that the sentences against these individuals had been determined in advance of their actual arrests. It was public statements by the Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin and Putin’s Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov who claimed that “mass riots” had occurred in Moscow, that served as calls to action. These statements were an implicit order to the Russian law enforcement and judiciary.

State television and other pro-government media outlets dutifully complied and started producing reports of the alleged “riots.” They claimed simultaneously that protesters were criminals, sponsored by the West, “nonresidents” (implying that they were not Muscovites and therefore their rights were not violated by the exclusion of independent candidates for the Moscow City Assembly elections).

The Memorial Human Rights Center asserts that these unlawful and immoral actions are carried out by the authorities with the aim of depriving the political opposition of public support, intimidating citizens and dissuading them from participation in the protest movement, and further encroaching on the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression of the Russian citizens.