5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Steiermark in Austria. 6.  At the relevant period the applicant lived in Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic of Russia and had a blog hosted by livejournal.com, a popular blog platform. 7.  In February 2007 an election campaign for election of members of the regional legislature was under way in the Komi Republic. 8.  On 14 February 2007 the police arrived with an “unplanned inspection” (внеплановая проверка) at the office of a local newspaper in Syktyvkar. The police searched the office, stated that the software installed on the computers was counterfeit, and seized the hard disks. 9.  Later that day, a regional non-governmental organisation – the Memorial Human Rights Commission in Komi (“Memorial”) – issued a press release which linked the search to the election campaign. The press release mentioned, in particular, that the newspaper in question had published a large amount of material in the context of the election campaign, and that it was in opposition to the current authorities of the Komi Republic, as it actively supported a well-known local politician who had a long-standing conflict with those authorities. The press release also stated that the police officers who had carried out the search had not clearly explained what the legal basis for their actions had been, and that one of them had acted rudely and had thrown out some of the journalist’s belongings to get access to the latter’s computer during that search. 10.  On the same day, the President of Memorial, Mr I.S., published the text of that press release on his blog at livejournal.com. Three comments were left under that publication on that day. One of the comments was left by a certain Mr T. and read as follows:
“The police, once again, confirm their reputation as ‘the regime’s faithful dogs’. Unfortunately, police officers still have the mentality of a repressive hard stick in the hands of those who have the power. It feels like they are an instrument of punishment of the recalcitrant rather than being a service to society. What can be done to carry out a rotation of meanings (ротация смыслов) in the law-enforcement agencies?” 11.  On the same date Mr B.S., a journalist, blogger and the applicant’s acquaintance, made a short post on his blog at livejournal.com about the search, stating that the police “[were] seconded for a fight with the political opposition”. The post contained a hyperlink to the press release published on Mr I.S.’s blog. 12.  On 15 February 2007 the applicant, who was a subscriber to Mr B.S.’s blog, read his above-mentioned post and then accessed Mr I.S.’s blog using the hyperlink. The applicant read the text of the press release and the comments, including the one left by Mr T. In the applicant’s words, this latter comment made a particularly strong impression on him. 13.  He then returned to Mr B.S.’s blog and posted a comment which was entitled “I hate the cops, for fuck’s sake” (“Ненавижу ментов, сцуконах”) and read as follows:
“I disagree with the idea that ‘police officers still have the mentality of a repressive hard stick in the hands of those who have the power’. Firstly, they are not police officers but cops; secondly, their mentality is incurable. A pig always remains a pig. Who becomes a cop? Only lowbrows and hoodlums – the dumbest and least educated representatives of the animal world. It would be great if in the centre of every Russian city, on the main square ... there was an oven, like at Auschwitz, in which ceremonially every day, and better yet, twice a day (say, at noon and midnight) infidel cops would be burnt. The people would be burning them. This would be the first step to cleansing society of this cop-hoodlum filth.” 14.  On 14 March 2007 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant under Article 282 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code in connection with his comment on the Internet. 15.  On 16 March 2007 the police searched the applicant’s home in the context of those proceedings. On the same day the applicant, who had found out the reasons for the criminal case against him, removed his comment. 16.  A report of 30 April 2007, reflecting the results of an examination carried out during the preliminary investigation, provided a detailed analysis of the language of the applicant’s comment. It stated, in particular, that in the text its author had expressed a distinctly negative opinion about all police officers, their personal and professional qualities, in a gross, indecent, aggressive and insulting form, widely using slang and, indirectly, obscene vocabulary typical of young users of the Internet. 17.  In the proceedings before the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic (“the Town Court”), the applicant pleaded not guilty. He conceded that he had been the author of the impugned statement, and argued that it had represented his emotional and spontaneous reaction to the press release of Memorial regarding the police search at the office of an opposition newspaper and to Mr B.S.’s relevant post and Mr T.’s comment. In the applicant’s words, for him there was a distinction between a “police officer”, that is to say an honest and respectable law-enforcement officer, and a “cop”, that is to say someone who acted unlawfully and abusively when performing professional duties. In his comment the applicant had expressed his disagreement with Mr T., who, in the applicant’s view, had confused those two notions. The applicant also insisted that his comments had been exclusively addressed to Mr B.S. with whom he had shared his thoughts regarding the police operation of 14 February 2007, and that he had had no intention of making it public, let alone calling for any actions against the police. The applicant further conceded that his comment had been quite provocative, but insisted that he had used exaggeration, in particular, referred to “an oven, like at Auschwitz”, only to express an idea that “infidel” police officers should be severely punished. Lastly, he apologised to former prisoners of Nazi concentration camps and to “honest” police officers, who may have felt offended by his comment. 18.  The Town Court called and examined a large number of witnesses. In particular, three police officers, who had conducted a pre-investigation inquiry in connection with the applicant’s comment on the Internet, stated that they had not seen it as directed against only “infidel” police officers; in their view, it had related to all police officers, had ascribed negative characteristics to them and had proposed to incinerate them in public. Mr B.S. stated that, in his view, the applicant’s comment had drawn a distinction between honest police officers and “infidel cops” and had only related to the latter category. Some of the witnesses stated that they had seen the applicant’s comment in Mr B.S.’s blog, whereas others stated that they had only become aware of the comment or read it after the criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant and his case had attracted the attention of the mass media. Some of the witnesses stated that they considered the applicant’s comment and the expressions used therein to be too harsh, and the word “lowbrows” to be immoral or unethical. Mr I.S. pointed out that “the bloggers’ community”, including his own acquaintances, had been indignant at the applicant’s comment which they had considered to be too strongly-worded; however, in that witness’s view, the applicant had merely expressed his opinion and had started a public discussion on an important issue. Another witness stated that he had not taken the applicant’s comment seriously, let alone seen it as calling for any violent action. 19.  At the request of the parties, the first-instance court ordered that a comprehensive socio-humanities forensic expert examination of the impugned text be carried out by a commission of experts. 20.  The expert report of 19 June 2008, reflecting the results of that examination, stated, in particular, that the applicant had targeted police officers as a “social group” and that his comment had “aimed at inciting hatred and enmity” towards this group and had “called for their physical extermination”.
(b)  Judgment of 7 July 2008 21.  On 7 July 2008 the Town Court found the applicant guilty under Article 282 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code for “having publicly committed actions aimed at inciting hatred and enmity and humiliating the dignity of a group of persons on the grounds of their membership of a social group”. The court based its findings on, among other evidence, the expert reports of 30 April 2007 and 19 June 2008, stating that it had no reasons to doubt the experts’ conclusions as those were consistent with the circumstances of the case as established by the court. 22.  The court stated, in particular, that the applicant, acting out of his personal aversion towards police officers, “[had] decided to influence the public with the aims of inciting them to commit violent actions against police officers, of instilling the public with the resolve and aspiration to commit unlawful actions in respect of [the police officers]”. According to the court, “the police officers of Russia [were] a large social group – people united by their common activity in protecting the life, health, rights and liberties of people, property, public and State interests from crimes and offences”. It also noted that the applicant “[had been] aware of the illegal nature of his actions when he [had] published his text aimed at inciting enmity and hatred, imbued with hostility, hatred and humiliation of the dignity of the police officers of Russia... on a more popular Internet blog than his own ... and thus [he had] made it accessible to a larger readership” and that “... access to the text [had been] unrestricted and it [had] remained accessible ... for approximately one month ...” 23.  The Town Court went on to note that the impugned text had been generalised and impersonal and had drawn no distinctions on any grounds; the word “cop” had been used with a negative and insulting meaning. According to the Town Court, the applicant had “argued that the police officers’ [had been] inferior on account of their professional grouping”, had humiliated their dignity by comparing them with “pigs” and ascribing to them the humiliating characteristics of “lowbrows and hoodlums – the dumbest and most uneducated representatives of the animal world ...” and “cop-hoodlum filth”. 24.  In the court’s view, the applicant “negatively [influenced] public opinion with the aim of inciting social hatred and enmity, escalating social conflict and controversy in society and awakening base instincts in people” and “[set] the community against police officers in calling for [their] physical extermination by ordinary people”. According to the trial court, “the text [did] not allow for any ambiguous interpretation of [its] content and meaning, because it [was] understandable to any average native speaker of Russian who [had] basic oral and written language skills”. 25.  The Town Court also found that the impugned text could not be viewed as a criticism, as it had not been intended as a discussion of any shortcomings or as an analysis or assessment of something specific. 26.  Lastly, the court considered that “the crime committed by [the applicant was] particularly blatant and dangerous for national security [as] it [ran] against the fundamentals of the constitutional system and State security”, with the result that a sentence involving the deprivation of liberty should be imposed on the applicant. Given the applicant’s positive references at the place of residence and work and the absence of a criminal record, the court considered it appropriate to give the applicant a suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment.
(c)  Appeal proceedings 27.  The applicant appealed against the conviction. He pleaded, in particular, that the trial court had deliberately extended the scope of the term “social group” to encompass police officers and that it had not been shown that his statement had, indeed, posed a danger to society. 28.  On 19 August 2008 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic rejected the applicant’s appeal and endorsed the Town Court’s conclusions. It also found that the experts had acted within the scope of their competence, and that the applicant’s allegation of a loose interpretation of the term “social group” had not affected the objectivity of the first-instance court’s findings. The appellate court added that the applicant’s statement had not been concerned with any criticism of the law-enforcement bodies but had publicly called for violence against police officers.