The UN is authorized to ask – Newspaper Kommersant No. 29 (7474) dated February 16, 2023

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention called on the Russian authorities to “immediately” release former Moscow municipal deputy Alexei Gorinov. He was sentenced to seven years in prison on charges of disseminating false information about the armed forces of the Russian Federation (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The case of Mr. Gorinov is the first case in the country when a person accused of this crime received a real prison term. Earlier, the Russian Constitutional Court determined that the decisions of the UN working groups are “the basis for the resumption of proceedings” and, accordingly, its revision. Lawyers believe that the conclusions of the representatives of the international organization may also affect 137 other criminal cases under Art. 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation initiated in 2022 and 2023.

The decision of the UN working group that considered the case of Aleksey Gorinov was published on February 15 by the lawyers of the OVD-Info human rights project (included in the register of foreign agents). Earlier, they sent a complaint to the international organization in the interests of the former deputy. The appeal was supported by lawyers from Paris, Madrid and the International Criminal Court. The authors of the document asked the UN experts to recognize the arrest of Aleksey Gorinov as “arbitrary” due to the violation of his rights to freedom of expression and participation in public affairs, as well as due to illegal detention and disproportionate sentence to international standards.

There are several working groups in the UN structure (for example, on enforced disappearances or on conflict resolution in Africa). These groups consider individual complaints from different countries and make about 90 decisions on them every year. The ECHR recognizes the work of such a group as a judicial mechanism, and the UN member states cannot ignore the decisions.

The case against Alexei Gorinov was initiated in April 2022 for statements made at a meeting of deputies of the Krasnoselsky municipal district of Moscow. The meeting was videotaped and broadcast on YouTube.

During the discussion, Mr. Gorinov proposed not to hold a children’s drawing contest in the region because of the military operations on the territory of Ukraine.

He was supported by the chairman of the Council of Deputies Elena Kotenochkina (later left the territory of the Russian Federation; she is the second defendant in the criminal case of Alexei Gorinov) and the mundep Ilya Yashin (recognized as a foreign agent and sentenced under the same article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 8.5 years in prison, but for other public statements ).

Several State Duma deputies complained about their colleagues in the capital and their “unacceptable statements” to the prosecutor’s office. The defense of Aleksey Gorinov pointed out that the deputies’ statements during working meetings (that is, “in the direct performance of duties”) cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution. The prosecutor’s office challenged this argument with the “public dissemination of false information” argument. Judgment at the appellate level as a result classified without specifying a specific reason, and Mr. Gorinov was sentenced to seven years in prison.

“Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be the immediate release of Mr. Gorinov and granting him the right to monetary compensation and other types of damages in accordance with international law,” the decision of the UN working group says. It also emphasizes that the Russian authorities did not respect the rights of Alexei Gorinov to a fair trial and “non-discrimination” for political views, and also violated six articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and five articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (including the right to freedom of speech and the right to participate in political life). Separately, the working group notes that anti-war speech “cannot be limited”, as it “falls under the protection of the right to freedom of expression.”

Now the case of Alexei Gorinov must be reviewed, says OVD-Info lawyer Daria Korolenko, referring to the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 2015 (No. 1276-O). In it, the Constitutional Court indicated that the decisions of the UN working groups and the judgments of the ECtHR are “the basis for the resumption of proceedings” and, accordingly, the revision. In a situation where Russia no longer has any connection with the ECHR, the UN remains the only instrument for protecting rights at the international level, Ms. Korolenko points out. The expert also emphasizes that this decision of the UN structure is the first opinion of an independent quasi-judicial body in cases of spreading false information about the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

Note that earlier the role of the UN as “the only international legitimate organization for resolving many issues” in an interview with Kommersant was confirmed by Senator Andrei Klimov.

The statement was made after the head of state instructed the Ministry of Justice to organize a working group to prepare a report at the UN on the state of human rights in the Russian Federation. Then the Ministry of Justice told Kommersant that the purpose of the report would be “a comprehensive assessment of our country’s progress in the promotion and protection of human rights over the past five years.” It should be noted that the report should also include statistical data on criminal prosecution for anti-war statements, that is, the practice of applying the new articles of the Criminal Code introduced in the spring of 2022. These include Art. 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

OVD-Info indicates that at the time of the UN response, 138 such cases were initiated in Russia.

“Other defendants are not obliged to review cases after the decision of the UN working group in the case of Alexei Gorinov,” points out Daria Korolenko. “However, this decision becomes the basis for appeals and cassations in other similar cases.”

Maria Starikova