This review describes the human rights situation in Russia: key events and the attitude of the human rights community with respect thereto. The review is prepared by the “Demos” Center with support of the OSI – Assistance Foundation.

LEGISLATION

On February 26,the State Duma approved in the third and final reading the bill “On counteracting terrorism”. The bill had been introduced by a group of deputies and approved in the first reading yet in December of 2004. Deputies’ work was expedited by the order of Vladimir Putin issued in February 15, 2006 “On measures to counteract terrorism”. According to this directive, the National Antiterrorist Committee will be put together to be led by the FSB Director. The FSB acquires the right to mobilize armed forces – up to a regiment – without authorization of the President and, should it be so required, bring down airborne aircraft seized by terrorists. More serious forces – divisions and armies – may only be mobilized by the RF President. The FSB Director will head the operative headquarters and coordinate movements of armed forces, law-enforcement, justice, and civil defense bodies, as well as determine the area within which an operation will be conducted, and appoint officials responsible for provision of mass media with information about operation’s development.

The law introduces its own definition: “Terrorism is the ideology of violence and the practice of exertion of pressure against decision-making processes of state power and local self-government bodies, as well as international organizations, associated with intimidation of population and other forms of illegal acts of violence”.

In the course of deliberations, one of the most odious provisions was excluded from the bill – the one on the “terrorist danger regime” which, upon receipt of “information pointing to possible preparation or threat of an act of terrorism”, could be imposed for as long as 60 days in certain areas or entire RF subjects. The other provision that was also excluded from the bill accounted for restriction of mass media activities within the zone of the anti-terrorist operation.

Nevertheless, the “anti-terrorist operation regime”, as it is accounted for by the law, provides for the possibility “to remove physical entities from certain areas”, “to monitor telephone conversations and other information transmitted through channels of telecommunication systems”, as well as “to restrict movement of vehicles and pedestrians on streets, roads, certain area segments, and other objects”.

On March 1, the law “On counteracting terrorism” was approved at a special session of the Federation Council and forwarded to the President for endorsement.

***
On February 2, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Mass Communications, Leonid Nadirov, announced that the Ministry of Culture was “secretly” preparing amendments for the federal law on the mass media. He refused, however, to provide specific details about the amendments having only added that the “concept of the current law would be preserved”.

Around the same time, the Minister of Culture and Mass Communications, Alexander Sokolov, advised that the process of development of the new amendments accounted for consultations with the Public Chamber. The members of the Public Chamber, however, had never heard about this before. “No one from the Ministry of Culture has sought to consult us”, - said Elena Zelinskaya, member of the Public Chamber’s Commission on communications, information policy, and the freedom of speech. She and the president of the media union, Alexander Lyubimov, both agree that the law requires corrections. Lyubimov, however, is baffled with the regime of secrecy: “The draft document prepared by the Sokolov’s team has not been discussed with the media community. This does not automatically mean that the draft amendments are anti-journalistic, but a bold question mark follows. Why? It seems there are no military secrets in the mass media market. And pursuant to the current law, mass media and the society have the right to access this information”.

The Secretary of the Union of Journalists of Russia, Igor Yakovenko, presumes, in turn, that the “secrecy” is accounted for by the fact that the Ministry of Culture simply does not know what exactly needs to be changed in the mass media law.

LAW-ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES

On February 13, the human rights activist from Dagestan, Osman Boliyev, was released from custody until a verdict on his case is reached. On the following day he was hospitalized complaining about pains in his heart, head, and spine. On February 21, he was unable to appear in the Khasavyurt city court to attend proceedings on his criminal case. To put it simply, this had to do with the medical treatment of consequences of tortures that Boliyev had been subjected to at the Khasavyurt internal affairs department, as well as during his three-month stay at a temporary detention facility.

Osman Boliyev was detained on November 15, 2005 by road police officers who pulled him over claiming they needed to check his vehicle because it resembled a car that was listed as stolen. On their way to the Khasavyurt police station Boliyev’s vehicle was pulled over by officers from the special designation police department (OMON). The road police officers handed Boliyev over to the OMON officers and drove away. The OMON officers brought Boliyev to the Khasavyurt department of internal affairs. Police officers subjected the human rights activist to a search and found a disassembled grenade on him. They also attempted to accuse Boliyev of participation in an illegal armed unit.

It appears that the illegal repressions against Osman Boliyev were accounted for by his professional activities. His ROO “Romashka” had initiated court proceedings on the notorious case of abduction of a local resident of Dagestan, Yarala Israilov, by officers of the Khasavyurt district department of internal affairs on October 19, 2004. In addition, it was Boliyev who had published the fact of murder of a six-year old girl, Summai Abdurashitova, by law-enforcement officers of Dagestan in the course of a special operation, and helped the child’s parents to submit a complaint to the European Court.

***

February turned out to be a “prolific” month for criminal proceedings initiated against representatives of law-enforcement authorities. The charges pressed against them are typical regardless of regions: subjection of citizens to torture and battery sometimes resulting in fatal outcomes.

On February 21, prosecution authorities of the city of Balakhna (Nizhniy Novgorod region) initiatedcriminal proceedings against three police officers who had beaten up a suspect contained in the local temporary detention facility. As a result of the beating the victim died.

On January 26, three officers of the Balakhna city department of internal affairs, Georgy Dubinin, Andrey Pakhomov, and Vladimir Mishukov, attached Yu. Bugrov to a bed with a scotch tape and started beating the suspect up, hitting him on his body and limbs. They repeated the beatings several times. On the morning of January 27, ambulance doctors registered the man’s death. A forensic medical examination indicated that Bugorv had died having sustained severe abdominal and chest injuries, fractions of six ribs, lung injuries, and ruptures of internal organs.

***
On February 6, in the Promyshlenny district of Vladikavkaz (Northern Osetia), criminal proceedings were initiated against a policeman. Several days prior, on February 2, he beat up a Channel 1 correspondent, Olga Kiriy, who was making a video report on the people who had been wounded as a result of explosions in Vladikavkaz gambling clubs. The journalist sustained a minor concussion.

***

On February 16,in Moscow, while meeting with an initiative group of citizens protesting against illegal construction on the Taganskaya street, attorney-at-law Yuri Padalko was stick-beaten by a police officer who guarded the construction site. The officer on duty at the Taganskoye department of internal affairs, N. Yu. Shilin, would refuse to accept victim’s report and forward him to a medical examination despite suspecting that Padalko’s nose had been broken.

Note that one day prior, at a press conference, Yuri Padalko had publicly called Moscow deputy mayor in charge of construction, Vladimir Resin, a grafter.

***

On February 25, the Chita regional courtdeclined the cassation appeal of a patrol unit ensign, Gennady Shikhardin, who requested revision of his sentence. Earlier, the Karymsky district court of the Chita region had found him guilty of abuse of authority complicated with application of violence.

The court established that on July 24, 2003, school student Semyon Berezin, spending his vacation at his grandmother’s in the Darasun settlement, was riding his motorcycle returning home from a store. Patrol officer Shikhardin pulled over the teenager and hit him on his face with a metal rod. Berezin managed to reach his friend’s house where first aid was provided to him. Later, when asked what had caused his aggressive actions, the policeman responded: “I hit him; I do what I please”.

Now that the sentence has taken effect, specialists of the “Public Verdict” Fund and the Chita Human Rights Center are helping the Berezins family to receive moral and material compensation for the damage sustained as a result of illegal actions of a state representative. A civil suit for 300,000 rubles has already been filed.

***

On February 27, the Tuimazinsky district court (Republic of Bashkortostan)passed its sentenceon two police officers accused of beating up Andrey Startsev. They were found guilty of abuse of authority. The court sentenced the officers of the Tuymazinsky district department of internal affairs: Aidar Vafin - to three years, and Shamil Akhmetshin - to four years of suspended imprisonment, respectively.

***

In late February, inLipetsk, a “Volga” carrying three passengers was pulled over by the road police. In the vehicle’s trunk the police officers found a girl. It turned out in the course of investigation that two of the three kidnappers were police investigators of the Traktorny Zavod district department of internal affairs of the city of Lipetsk. The detainees had met three girls in a café and went to the woods outside the city. After they all had consumed some alcohol, two of the girls managed to escape but the third one failed to do so. First, the police officers beat her up. Next, they tethered her to their vehicle with a towing rope and dragged her around the woods for some time.

***

In connection with all the abovementioned facts, the research data provided by the Yuri Levada’s Analytical Center are interesting. On February 15, the “Public Verdict” Fund held a press conference to present results of the sociological survey “Police officers on police problems: arbitrariness of the law-enforcement bodies, the relationship between the police and the society”. The survey had been conducted among officers serving in various subdivisions of law-enforcement authorities in 41 cities of Russia.

It turned out that most of the surveyed police officers (70%) are upset about citizens’ negative and disrespectful attitude towards the police. At the same time, almost two thirds (63%) of the surveyed think that application of physical force with respect to individuals suspected of commission of criminal offences is acceptable in certain cases, and almost the same number of the surveyed (60%) think it is acceptable to apply physical force with respect to people who insult police officers.

The surveyed police officers complained it was difficult for them to operate in conditions of insufficient funding and excessive bureaucracy, as well as in view of the fact that their superiors provoke them to show off and abuse their authority. Furthermore, police officers tend to assess their colleagues’ professionalism and legal culture as quite low. But at the same time, the majority of police officers are decidedly against enhancement of the public control over law-enforcement authorities and improvement of their transparency and openness.

THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

On January 31, 2006, the Blagoveschensk district court (Bashkiria) convicted three local businessmen charged in December of 2004 with hooliganism with respect to police officers. Viktor Geroyev was sentenced to 2.5 years of imprisonment, and Oleg Katayev and Renat Islanov – to three years of suspended imprisonment each.

Defendants’ attorney, Rais Faiskhanov, disagreed with the sentence passed by federal judge Akhmadeyev:
“The sentence is based on unacceptable proof. I think that this case is a shady fabrication. The actions of Geroyev and Katayev do not contain corpus delicti. I will demand that they be acquitted”.

There are grounds to assume that this suit was intended to justify the cleaning in Blagoveschensk that followed a couple days later. According to the official investigation, on December 8, 2004, a group of about 40 people attacked three patrol officers and two road police officers. This incident provoked a preventive operation in Blagoveschensk on December 10-14 undertaken by the RB Ministry of Internal Affairs and authorized by the RB prosecution authorities. The operation was carried out by the entire staff of the Blagoveschensk district department of internal affairs (130 officers) and 17 officers of the special designation police department of Bashkiria. 347 citizens were identified to have suffered from abuse of authority exercised by the police officers.

In February, the Blagoveschenk city court continued the proceedings on the case of participants and leaders of the police “cleanings” undertaken in December of 2004. Only 30 out of 341 victims have been questioned so far in the course of the proceedings.
Eight police officers were charged with abuse of authority. Three leaders of the police force are among the accused – head of the Blagoveschensk district department of internal affairs, Ildar Ramazanov, his deputy, Oleg Mirzin, and commander of the operative company of the special designation police department, Oleg Sokolov.

***

On February 21, the Leninsky district court of the city of Cheboksaryruledthat moral damages incurred by the resident of Chuvashia, Elena Nikolayeva, as a result of unjustified criminal prosecution, be compensated from the RF budget. Her husband had obtained a fake letter of authorization issued in her name that authorized her to dispose of somebody else’s vehicle. Intending to secretly sell the vehicle he did not say anything to his wife. As a result, Elena was charged with fraud and criminal proceedings were initiated against her.

In the course of the preliminary investigation Elena was found not guilty of the offence she had been charged with. The investigative department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Chuvashia issued a resolution terminating the criminal proceedings against Nikolayeva in view of the fact that her actions did not contain corpus delicti. By then, however, information about her possible implication in the felony had become known to her relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances.

***

On February 26, the Kanavinsky district court of Nizhniy Novgorod ruledthat the state should pay 123,000 rubles of compensation to Sergey Oleinik who had become disabled after being assaulted by police officers. The court established that on November 16, 2000, sitting with a friend in a café, driver Sergey Oleinik was beaten up by police officers, Nikolai Khoryakov and Mikhail Frolov, both of whom were clad in civilian clothes, after he had asked them to present their police identification documents. Earlier, the court had found Khoryakov and Frolov guilty and sentenced them to suspended imprisonment.

NATIONALISM AND XENOPHOBIA

In February, the Moscow city courtbegan to review the case on the assault of parishioners of the Moscow synagogue on the Bolshaya Bronnaya street. It occurred on January 11 of this year. A 20-year old muscovite, Alexander Koptsev, broke into the synagogue and assaulted parishioners with a knife. As a result, nine parishioners were wounded. The other parishioners and security guards apprehended Koptsev and handed him over to the police.

Koptsev was charged on two counts of the RF Criminal Code.
Article 105 – “attempted murder of two or more persons based on national, religious hatred and enmity” (imprisonment for the term of eight or more years or life imprisonment) and Article 282 – “actions undertaken to incite hatred and enmity and disparagement complicated with violence” (a fine or up to five years in prison). The defendant refused from being trialed by jury. Based on his petition the judge will consider the case individually. The proceedings are open to the public.

Koptsev does not plead guilty. When asked by the judge why he refused to plead guilty he smiled and answered: “Because the Criminal Code was written by Jews and the Jewish mafia, I refuse to plead guilty”.

According to the state prosecutor, Kira Gudim, this was Koptsev’s third attempt at assault: allegedly, he attempted to attack parishioners of synagogues some time in late December and on January 4. In the former case, the defendant approached the synagogue located in building 3 on the 9th Parkovskaya street but it was closed, said the prosecutor. In the latter case, Koptsev had the wrong address and arrived at building 4 in the Novosuschevsky pereulok whereat he was “scared away by building’s security guards”, announced the prosecutor.

***

On February, 28, the Sovetsky district court of the city of Astrakhan pronounced its sentence on the criminal case initiated on account of mass riots that occurred on August 16, 2005 in the settlement of Yandyki of the Limansky district of the Astrakhan region. More than 3,500 people live in the settlement of Yandyki, of which 237 are Chechens, and 288 are Kalmyks.

The court found 12 Chechens residing in the settlement guilty on the count of armed hooliganism committed by a group of persons on previous concert. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 2.5 to 5 years. Some time prior to that, a Kalmyk, Anatoly Bagiyev, had been sentenced to 7 years in prison for participation in and incitement of mass riots and calls to disobey legal requirements of authorities.

On the night of August 16, 2005, settlement residents started a fight. In the course of the fight a 24-year old Kalmyk, N. Boldarev, died of a gunshot wound. Local residents accused the Chechens of his death. During N. Boldarev’s funeral, on August 18, a crowd of about 500 people started setting fire to houses and vehicles owned by the Chechens and beating up their proprietors. The Chechens attempted to defend their houses. Eight houses were burnt down, three vehicles were destroyed, and five people sustained bodily injuries.

Expert comments

Alexander Cherkasov, board member of the “Memorial” Human Rights Center: The Chechens have been convicted for a scuffle in which, apart from them, dozens and hundreds of people participated, including Chechens, Kalmyks, and Russians. Note that the police did not attempt to suppress the fight but watched it from aside. I keep asking myself: Why was it Chechens that were convicted for participation in the fight?

And for the massacre, out of the several hundred people who raided through the settlement smashing the Chechens’ homes, only one Kalmyk was convicted. Besides, this was not quite a spontaneous act: the crowd was followed by a fire engine that would put out the fire on neighboring houses that caught it accidentally. It means that this crime had been investigated a lot less diligently than the mass scuffle that preceded it. Besides, there is one more person there who had repeatedly figured in various acts of violence in the settlement – the police even tried to detain him. He participated in those massacres and arsons, but like many others stayed out of sight of the investigation.

***

On February 20, in the Hall of Fame of the Moscow memorial complex on the Poklonnaya Gora, sponsored by the “United Russia”, an antifascist pact execution ceremony took place. Twelve political parties took part in the ceremony: the “United Russia”, the LDPR, the APR, the SPS, the SEPR, the Russian Party of Pensioners, the “Patriots of Russia”, the Russian United Industrial Party, the Russian Party of Peace, the “Free Russia” party, the Party of Social Justice, and the Democratic Party of Russia.

Having signed the document the SPS leader, Nikita Belykh, immediately expressed criticism with respect to the initiative. “A discussion of a problem does not always replace its solution. This is a show, even though it is good, – he said. – I don’t believe it! The LDPR leader who earlier proclaimed xenophobic slogans signs this pact! This is a farce designed to provide PR support to the “United Russia” at an ideological event. It is not up to these people to decide who will participate in elections. But the SPS is prepared to sign any pacts containing the word “antifascism”.

The parties that signed the pact are of the opinion that the consolidation was based on the principle of loyalty to the power, not the struggle against fascism. Member of the “Yabloko” political council, Sergey Mitrokhin, advised that the parties had been suggested to undergo a power loyalty test and those of them that have failed it are blacklisted”, – they will be “debarred from participation in elections and ousted from the mass media”. Deputy Chairman of the Central Committee of the RF Communist Party, Ivan Melnikov, identified the treaty as a “right but absolutely unnecessary for the people paper” which says nothing about “what causes such a phenomenon as fascism” or about how to “practically eliminate such causes”.

The “Rodina” leader, Dmitry Rogozin,declared that as soon as Mr. Zhirinovsky was the first to support the initiative of the “United Russia” the pact immediately turned into a farce. Because the LDPR leader takes the liberty to articulate such statements that even representatives of the groups that really support fascism do not venture uttering.

***

According to results of theresearchcommissioned by the “Public Verdict” Fund and carried out by the Yuri Levada’s Analytical Center, the level of xenophobia among police officers is high. The “Russia for Russians” idea is supported by 40% of the surveyed, whereas negative emotions, such as, for instance, suspicion, irritation, and apprehension with respect to people coming from the North-Caucasian and Transcaucasian republics, are experienced by 67% of the surveyed policemen”.


TERRORIST THREAT: POWER AND SOCIETY

On February 9, the Supreme Court of North Osetiaannouncedit had completed investigative proceedings on the case of terrorist Nurpashi Kulayev and began the hearing of arguments. The state prosecutor, Nikolai Shepel, demanded a death penalty for Kulayev. “Mothers of Beslan” supported the demand. “We agree with the bill of indictment but we will demand penalties for all that are guilty, including responsible officials”, – announced head of the “Mothers of Beslan” committee, Susanna Dudiyeva.

To protest against the unfinished investigation, the women-members of the “Voice of Beslan” committee went on a hunger-strike. Member of the “Voice of Beslan” committee, Ella Kesayeva, advised after the court session that the “investigation was not objective, the true perpetrators were never named, and we have no hopes for the core case”.

Before the session began, member of the “Voice of Beslan” committee, Ella Kesayeva submitted a petition requesting that presentation of cases should be postponed because in her opinion not all the witnesses who could throw some light on the September 2004 tragedy had been examined yet. Having heard out parties’ opinions the court decided to decline the petition. Oil on the flames was poured by physician Leonid Roshal who participated in the session in the capacity of a witness. He virtually accused victims’ relatives of political speculations and entirely endorsed the actions of the operative headquarters, prosecution authorities, special designation troops, and those of President Putin personally.

***

To target=blank>support the people of Beslan, victims of the previous terrorist attack from the “Nord-Ost” committee forwarded an open letter to Leonid Roshal. In this letter, they accused Roshal of the fact that his “statements directly depended on gifts he received from the authorities”. In particular, the famous podiatrist receives funding for his medical center in exchange for keeping silent about the consequences of the gas attack at “Nord-Ost” and vindicating the onslaught of the Beslan school.

Expert comments

Leo Ponomaryov, leader of the movement “For human rights”:The courage that Beslan residents display as they make their attempts to find out the truth about the terrorist attack deserves the most profound respect. This seems to be the first example when citizens have managed to break down the well established tradition pursuant to which highly positioned officials are always spared from criticism. On the other hand, the very fact that the court investigation was stopped half-way through, as well as the efforts that the authorities have undertaken to that end, indicate that the actions of public committees from Beslan are effective and dangerous for the regime.

STATUS OF REFUGEES

On February 25, the Parliament of Ingushetiasubjected the plandesigned to return Ingush refugees to the Prigorodny district of North Osetia to harsh criticism. The mechanism was approved on February 8 at the meeting of the plenipotentiary representative of the RF President in the Southern Federal District, Dmitry Kozak, with leaders of the two republics.

The deputies are displeased with the decision to place the forced migrants who lost their homes during the conflict between Osetia and Ingushetia not in the area of their former permanent residence, but in new settlements on the territory of Northern Osetia. Moreover, the responsibility for the arrangement of the “schedule of activities to assist the settlement of forced migrants” is vested exclusively with North Osetia which enables its authorities to determine whether or not the refugees will be able to return to their former places of residence. And the very condition of their return to the Prigorodny district – “provided there are no obstacles and impediments thereto” – looks practically unrealizable on the backdrop of the protracted conflict.

Ingushetia insistently demands that the refugees should return to the very areas and homes they had lived in before the conflict began, and consider the establishment of special settlements as an attempt to create a reservation for the Ingush population on the territory of Northern Osetia.

The Ingush deputies also think that in this situation the Southern Federal District officials have assumed the pro-Osetia position which is reflected in the address to the RF President adopted at a special session of the Parliament. In this document, the deputies criticize every clause of the protocol and urge the head of the country to interfere with the situation.

As a result of the armed conflict that occurred in 1992, dozens of thousands of residents of the Prigorodny district of the Ingush nationality were forced to abandon their homes. According to the Ministry of ethnic affairs and public relations of Ingushetia, as of early 2006, approximately 19,000 forced migrants from Northern Osetia were still residing in Ingushetia. 99.9% of these people have expressed their willingness to return to their former places of residence. Currently, the refugees are residing in more than 30 temporary placement facilities (TPF) and private homes on the territory of Ingushetia. During the entire post-conflict period, 12,440 people returned to the places of their permanent residence.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

On February 3, court proceedings on the so-called “Dmitriyevsky case” were completed. The Sovetsky district court of Nizhniy Novgorod sentenced the editor-in-chief of the “Pravo-Zaschita” newspaper, leader of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, to two years of suspended imprisonment. The human rights activist was imputed with publication of statements of Aslan Maskhadov addressed to the European Parliament which contained proposals on peaceful settlement of the conflict in Chechnya, as well as statements of Akhmed Zakayev addressed to the Russian citizens in which he urged them not to vote for the current president at the last elections.

In his “final plea” Dmitriyevsky spoke about the cynicism of the state indictment as well as about the fact that he had been charged with incitement of national hatred on the basis of a conclusion made by expert O. Khokhlysheva, and most importantly – that the current situation in Russia largely resembles the times that seem to have passed a long time ago. And that at a time like this every person faces the need to make a choice.

“…I am proud that I have found myself in the company of such worthy contemporaries of mine as Mikhail Trepashkin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Grigory Pasko, and Alexander Nikitin. They chose freedom and I have made my choice too… To some people this choice comes easily, like a gulp of fresh air; from others it requires a strenuous moral exertion, courage, and even self-sacrifice … Today you are facing this choice too, Your Honor. I wish that you have enough courage to make it”, – addressed Dmitriyevsky judge Bondarenko who was to decide his fate several hours later (or pronounce somebody else’s decision made in advance).

It turned out later that the judge would have liked to pronounce the sentence without witnesses. According to his oral instructions, only defendant’s family members and accredited journalists were to be present in the courtroom. It is not clear what motivated such judge’s instructions. Because even in closed proceedings the sentence is always pronounced publicly. Everyone at least somewhat familiar with the law knows that. Having reminded the bailiffs of this legal norm Dmitriyevsky refused to enter the courtroom.

Human rights activists in attendance, including Svetlana Gannushkina and Sergey Kovalyov, supported the defendant. After a moment of hesitation judge Bondarenko agreed to comply with the law having warned the public through the clerk, however, that no outcries or comments in the courtroom would be tolerated. The truth is that the court did have grounds to fear emotions in the courtroom – Dmitriyevsky’s final plea was greeted with extended applause.

At the end of the month, Stanislav Dmitriyevskydeclaredthat the evidence in his criminal case had been falsified in the course of the court proceedings. The petitions that he submitted to the RF General Prosecution authorities and the regional Judges’ Qualification Board contain information indicating that the protocol of the court proceedings had been grossly distorted in the key expert examination section which is proved by the audio recording of the interrogation.

And this was not a case of mere negligence because the protocol ascribes definitions to the expert which in reality he had not provided and even refused to provide having referred to his incompetence in a number of knowledge areas. In particular, expert Larisa Teslenko, whose conclusions about the presence of signs of incitement of racial, national, and social enmity in the publications were used by the court as the foundation of the indictment bill, refused to define such notions as “race”, “nationality”, and “social group” in the course of the examination and recommended that the court should refer to sociology experts.

Dmitriyevsky is of the opinion that the court’s actions that resulted in the protocol of examination of expert L. Yu. Teslenko contain signs of corpus delicti accounted for by Article 303 of the RF Criminal Code (“falsification of evidence”).

***

On February 16,in Volgograd, the daily municipal newspaper “Gorodskiye Vesti” was closed. A directive to that effect was signed by the acting head of the city administration, Andrey Doronin.

The scandal broke out because of the article “Racists have no place in the power” published in the newspaper on February 9. The article was accompanied by a drawing picturing Jesus Christ, Moses, Buddha, and Prophet Mohammed watching TV. Two groups of people poised for a fight are visible on the TV screen. The caption under the drawing reads: “We have never taught them that”.

This decision of the city head was not supported by all of his subordinates. Vice Mayor of Volgograd, Konstantin Kalachov,declaredthat this was not an occasion that would make it acceptable to shut down the newspaper or demand that its editor-in-chief be dismissed.

In addition, although the prosecution authorities have initiated a pre-investigation examination on account of the fact of incitement of religious discord, the decision of competent bodies on whether or not the newspaper has violated any law is yet to be issued. Moreover, neither confession has raised any claims with respect to the journalists. But apparently, the acting mayor of Volgograd, Mr. Doronin, has other priorities: the Volgograd chapter of the “United Russia” has repeatedly demanded that he should “sort out” the newspaper.