Source: http://forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2059
Timestamp: 2018-11-18 15:25:11
Document Index: 133949967

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 5', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Forum 18: RUSSIA: Jailed for exercising freedom of religion or belief in public - 1 May 2015
It had also previously been hoped in Russia that the legal requirements for public events under the Code of Administrative Offences' Article 20.2 ("Violation of the established procedure for organising or conducting a gathering, meeting, demonstration, procession, or picket") would be leniently interpreted, after a December 2012 Constitutional Court ruling responding to two complaints from Jehovah's Witnesses (see F18News 15 August 2013 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1865). But these hopes were not fulfilled as prosecutions and convictions continued (see eg. F18News 2 December 2013 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1902).
16 defendants in 2015 so far
Of the ten known Article 20.2 cases in the first few months of 2015 against people who exercise freedom of religion or belief, three were brought under Part 1, three under Part 5, and four under Part 2. These involved a total of 16 defendants. Fines were imposed in 7 of the cases, against 13 defendants.
In one case under Article 20.2, Part 2, four Muslim men were convicted in Moscow for organising a march with banners proclaiming "There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet", without notifying the city authorities. In another case under Part 1, an Evangelical Protestant was acquitted of violating the Demonstrations Law for holding a placard saying "There is a God" with others doing the same less than 50 metres (55 yards) away.
All other known cases involved Jehovah's Witnesses engaging in public ministry with stands of their literature in the street.
"One of the main forms of expression of the right of believers"
The authorities have also attempted to prosecute Hare Krishna adherents for alleged violations under Article 20.2. Such attempts have so far proved unsuccessful, Mikhail Frolov, a lawyer for the Hare Krishna community in Moscow, told Forum 18 on 30 April. These include a case brought under Part 1 in Novosibirsk in 2013, which resulted in a 2,500 Rouble fine for allegedly not agreeing the route of a procession with the city administration – the ruling was later overturned in a higher court.
Hare Krishna communities' principal problem lies in the refusal of local authorities to allow religious processions to go ahead in the first place, Frolov told Forum 18. Such events have been banned on the grounds that they were to be held at a prohibited site or would obstruct pedestrian traffic (see F18News 26 July 2010 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1469). Frolov complained that such refusals are made "under false pretences".
Public processions with chanting constitute "one of the main forms of expression of the right of believers to act in accordance with their beliefs and the right to disseminate them" and are "a very ancient tradition", Frolov explained to Forum 18.
As seen from the court verdicts from early 2015, police and prosecutors consistently interpret Jehovah's Witness literature stands as pickets, defined as "public expression of opinion by .. one or more people, using posters, banners and other means of visual agitation". Under the Demonstrations Law, group pickets require prior notification of the authorities while individual pickets do not. Individual pickets may not be nearer to each other than 50 metres. All organisers of pickets must carry distinguishing signs declaring themselves as the organisers.
Because of such an interpretation, prosecutors could bring cases against Jehovah's Witnesses M. Churkina and Yu. Svetlakova for holding a "group" picket without notification, when they set up an information stand in a pedestrian alleyway in Rostov-on-Don. They each received a fine of 20,000 Roubles.
As evident from their arguments in court, Jehovah's Witnesses themselves do not see their activities as picketing and it therefore did not occur to them to notify authorities, ensure 50 metres distance between participants, or identify themselves as organisers.
There is a fundamental difference in the way the public exercise of freedom of religion or belief is seen by those who exercise this human right and the way law enforcement agencies see this. Regarding Pilipchuk's case on 14 April, the Baptists insisted that "Christian songs and conversations with people cannot be classified as rallies, pickets, marches and demonstrations".
The court verdicts also indicate judges' inconsistent interpretation of very similar circumstances. This results in some defendants being acquitted for actions which were punished in other courts.
People exercising their freedom of religion or belief can easily fall foul of vague legal requirements they may not even know they should be aware of. (END)