In Russia, taking part in a demonstration that hasn’t been sanctioned by the government can cost citizens their right to work in federal agencies. Officially dubbed “unreliable” citizens, opposition activists and other political protesters are entered into special blacklists drawn up by law enforcement agencies for purposes that are not entirely understood. It was on such a blacklist that Vera Sizova, a retired resident of St. Petersburg, unexpectedly found herself – upon being told that she was banned from working for the 2010 Russian Census because of her son’s opposition activities.

Sizova first got the idea to work as a census-taker when she received a call from the Russian Federal State Statistical Service (Rosstat) asking about her son, Maksim Malyshev. “The commissioner for the census in the Kalininsky District of St. Petersburg, Elena Sviridkina, called,” explained Sizova. “She proposed that Maksim work for the census as a group leader. He had already worked for the 2002 census as a deputy group leader – he had experience. But Maksim is very busy with work, so I decided to ask for the job myself. They accepted me, inviting me to go through training and build up a team.”

Her first day of work was typical: Sizova was registered into her new position, given the necessary documents, and promised an employment contract. “But in the evening Sviridkina called me and said that I wasn’t going to get the contract because my son and I were on a list of people that the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Regional Main Department of Internal Affairs (GUVD) has compromising information about,” Sizova said.

Maksim Malyshev is the head of the St. Petersburg branch of the Left Front, a socialist opposition organization that holds a variety of sanctioned and unsanctioned anti-government protests. Their members are often arrested for participating in and organizing rallies such as the Day of Wrath, which is held monthly as a venue for Russians to voice their general grievances against local authorities. In its time, Garry Kasparov’s Other Russia opposition coalition included the Left Front within its ranks.

The news that her son’s opposition activity would bar her from working the census came as a shock to Sizova. She sent three inquiries to Rosstat demanding an explanation, and in the end got a response with a different reason altogether – that she had failed to take a pre-training test on time. The pensioner said that while this was true, it was because she was sick on testing day and in any case had been told by on-staff statisticians that “it wouldn’t be a problem.”

Sizova attempted to fight the decision in court. At the end of January 2011, she filed suit against the local Rosstat branch in St. Petersburg’s Petrogradsky Regional Court. “According to the Civil Code, you can see how they hired me; since I worked there for one day, they admitted that I was fit for that position,” Sizova explained the essence of her case.

The suit, however, was thrown out. During the hearing this past June, Elena Sviridkina again invoked the blacklist of unreliable citizens. “Before the beginning of the census, all branches of Rosstat were given an order to do checks on the census-takers against the GUVD databases – if there were issues with anyone, they wouldn’t be allowed to take part in the census,” Sviridkina said. “We checked Sizova – she turned out to be on the list. We don’t have the right to let her go out to people.” A copy of the blacklist for the Kalininsky District obtained by the Moskovsky Novosti newspaper did indeed include Sizova and her son on it, along with four other people.

The Petrogradsky Regional Court did not see the existence of such a list as particularly unreasonable. According to the court’s judicial ruling, checking lists of people with the police is not a violation of Vera Sizova’s rights, “since by its very nature it’s meant to protect an unlimited group of people who are going to give over personal information about themselves during the census.” Sizova has already appealed the decision in St. Petersburg City Court. “I’m prepared to go to the Supreme Court,” she insisted.

But Rosstat appears to be intent on holding its ground. “There is nothing surprising in that Rosstat would check out the backgrounds of the people who are going to collect citizens’ personal information, go to their house – no,” a source in the agency told Moskovsky Novosti, also confirming that the order to do the checks against the police database was indeed sent to all regional Rosstat branches. The St. Petersburg and Leningrad Regional GUVD did not deny the existence of the blacklist, either. “But I can only say anything about it to citizen Sizova, and at that, only in response to an inquiry,” said Vyacheslav Stepchenko, head of GUVD public relations.

Malyshev is puzzled as to why his mother should suffer from his own unapologetic adherence to oppositionist views, especially considering that they did nothing to prevent him from working for Rosstat in the past. “I took part in protests, but that didn’t bar me from working for the 2002 census. Now, clearly, the authorities have decided to secure themselves against unreliable persons, so that the public doesn’t get any information about violations,” Malyshev told Moskovsky Novosti.

A situation in which a mother has to answer for her son’s opposition activity is manifestly unlawful, says Anatoly Kucherena, representative of Russia’s federal Public Chamber commission on law enforcement agencies control and judicial-legal system reforms. “And in general – what does ‘compromising information’ mean? If the police have suspicions upon which to begin criminal proceedings, they should work to file that case. If there’s no basis to do so, then a person and their relatives have the right to live a normal life,” Kucherena said.

Director Pavel Chikov of the Agora human rights association believes that the blacklist itself is a gross violation of the presumption that one is innocent before proven guilty. “The state has the right to collect any sort of information about citizens, particularly if it’s negative, only when they are suspected of having committed a criminally punishable offense and only with the goal of investigating that particular crime. De-facto, the St. Petersburg police have introduced a state of emergency that limits the constitutional rights of city residents and punishes them with a blow to their rights, however it wants to, without a court or investigation,” Chikov told Moskovsky Novosti.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that it is illegal for Russian law enforcement agencies to draw up blacklists of unreliable citizens – at the end of June 2011, the court declared a police transport database in the Volgo-Vyatsky region called “Watchdog Control” to be unlawful. The successful case was filed by Sergei Shimovolos of the Nizhny Novgorod Human Rights Society, who was arrested in 2007 under suspicion of “extremism” as a result of being included in the database.

With the court (ECHR) routinely ruling in favor of victims of human rights violations either perpetrated by Russian government agencies or that occurred under their watch, the measure poses a serious threat to the rights of Russian citizens. If the bill passes, Russia would still have to pay victims any monetary compensation ordered by the court, but legislative obligations could be fully ignored.

In an ironic twist of fate, the Communist Party has stepped forward as the first Duma faction to contest Torshin’s bill.

As reported by the newspaper Kommersant, a group of deputies from the Communist Party filed an official complaint against the bill on June 28. As it stands, the pending measure would allow Russia’s Constitutional Court to determine for itself whether or not the ECHR’s decisions correspond with the constitution – and thus, whether or not they ought to be enforced. For its part, the Communist faction argues that the 17th article of the Russian constitution “admits and guarantees human and civil rights and freedoms in accordance with the generally accepted principals and norms of international rights and in accordance with the acting constitution,” thus rendering the bill unconstitutional.

The deputies have filed two separate complaints. One was sent to the Tverskoy Regional Court in regards to Torshin himself, who they label as “an official in abuse of his position.” The second complaint was sent to the Supreme Court to contest the bill itself.

“It effectively limits the rights of Russian citizens to protection in the European Court,” explained Communist Party Secretary Sergei Obukhov. Moreover, the Russian constitution, in his words, prohibits the introduction of any legislation that would limit existing civil rights and freedoms.

“Effectively, we are defending a bourgeois democracy that our own bourgeoisie is attacking,” Obukhov said in conclusion.

Radio Free Liberty/Radio Europe reports:

The European Court of Human Rights has slapped a fine on Russia for banning homosexual rallies in Moscow, handing an unprecedented victory to the country’s marginalized homosexual community.

Leading Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alekseyev had lodged a complaint with the court after unsuccessfully challenging the bans in Russian courts.

Speaking to RFE/RL, Alekseyev hailed the ruling as a “grandiose success” not only for homosexuals but for all Russian citizens.

“We consider this a defeat of Russian homophobia on all fronts,” Alekseyev says.

“Now Russia will have to allow gay prides in Moscow but also change its legislation with regard to legal defense in case a public gathering is banned.”

In a statement issued on October 21, the Strasbourg-based court said Russia had breached the European Convention on Human Rights, which the country formally adheres to as a member of the Council of Europe.

The court said the Moscow government’s argument that a gay pride parade risked sparking clashes with antigay protesters was “not sufficient to justify” its ban, adding that forbidding gay-rights marches and pickets was “not necessary in a democratic society.”

Its judges ruled that Russia had violated rights of assembly, discriminated against sexual orientation, and denied Alekseyev’s right to legal redress. It ordered Russian authorities to pay the activist 29,510 euros ($41,000) in damages and legal fees.

Last month, Alekseyev went missing for two days, before reappearing in Moscow claiming he had been kidnapped by unidentified men, who had tried to pressure him into dropping his case at the Strasbourg court.

Attempts to hold gay parades in Moscow have been marred by violence and arrests.

Moscow’s recently-sacked mayor Yury Luzhkov had said the rallies, which he described as the “work of Satan,” would never take place under his rule.

Alekseyev now hopes the landmark ruling will encourage new Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, who was approved by lawmakers for the post on October 21, to take a softer line on gay rights.

Although Russia decriminalized homosexuality in the early 1990s, there is still little tolerance for gays and lesbians in Russia, where many are opposed to gay parades.

Not all gay-rights activists, either, support such gatherings, saying they will bring more trouble than they are worth.

Several other cases filed by Alekseyev and other gay-rights activists are currently pending at the European Court of Human Rights, including a complaint regarding Russia’s ban on same-sex marriages.

The Russian human rights organization Agora told Kasparov.ru on Friday that the court convicted Russia of violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Russia was convicted of the later offense.

The HIV-positive prisoner, who had been held in St. Petersburg’s famous Kresty prison, appealed to the Strasbourg Court in November 2005. His diagnosis came two days after his arrest on May 20, 2004, and the prisoner’s health began to decline that October.

When the prisoner appealed to doctors at Kresty for treatment, he was told to take aspirin, papaverine, and painkillers.

When the man tried to object that this type of treatment was clearly insufficient, he was threatened with solitary confinement, which he was placed in at the end of October.

Conditions in the solitary cell were deplorable: prisoners in neighboring cells confirmed that there was no heat, with temperatures in the winter dropping to 45-50 degrees Fahrenheit, along with no ventilation or hot water. Moreover, medical personnel rarely visited the area.

Medics at Kresty said that they “don’t have medicine for HIV-positive prisoners due to the lack of funding.” When asked for anti-retroviral drugs by the HIV-positive prisoner, they administered painkillers and added some extra sugar and margarine to his daily rations.

The prisoner was twice refused admittance to a hospital on the basis that there wasn’t enough space because of so many HIV patients already there.

The Russian government insisted in court that the prisoner had received adequate medical care. Officials said that he was regularly examined by competent doctors who carried out a series of medical tests on his blood, which, in their opinion, was sufficient to judge the condition of his health.

The Strasbourg Court pointed out that the patient lacks the necessary medical knowledge to know what drugs he would need to treat his condition without a doctor’s prescription.

Nikolai Alexeyev, founder of the Gayrussia.ru rights project and one of the event’s organizers, told Interfax on that he was told over the phone by the mayor’s office that the application for Moscow Pride had been turned down. Parades, protests, rallies, and other similar events require government sanction to be legally held in Russia; organizing an unsanctioned rally can lead to jail time.

The city did not appear to attempt to hide its flagrant violation of Russian law in banning Moscow Pride. “Contrary to the demands of acting legislation, the Moscow government did not propose any kind of alternative [locations] for holding the planned event to organizers of the march,” reads a statement on Gayrussia.ru.

Alexeyev said that he and his fellow organizers intend to file a complaint about the city’s decision with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. More immediately, he said they would appeal the decision in Moscow’s Tverskoy Court after receiving written confirmation that the parade has been banned.

“We’re going to try to get the case considered by the court before the date of the event – May 29,” Alexeyev said.

The Strasbourg Court is set to rule this year on three cases filed by Moscow Pride organizers against the city for banning their parades in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Their event was also prohibited in 2009, but 30 participants attempted to march in defiance of the ban. Five minutes after the beginning of the march, all 30 activists were arrested by OMON riot police.

Earlier, Alexeyev stated that if the Moscow city authorities refuse to sanction this year’s Moscow Pride parade, they would try to gain permission to hold it on the territory of an embassy of a Western country.

Moscow Mayor Luzhkov is famous for his vocal homophobia, routinely denouncing gay pride parades a “satanic activity.” In January, he vowed to ban what he called “the display of blasphemy under the guise of creativity and protected by the principle of freedom of speech” in Moscow on a permanent basis.

Russian gay rights advocates have suffered from strong public and governmental opposition dating back to Soviet times. In accordance with a Stalinist decree, homosexuality carried a sentence of up to five years in prison until 1993, when legislators legalized it at the urging of the Council of Europe. It remained on the list of Russian mental illnesses until 1999. While there are no laws explicitly banning homosexuality, government authorities have failed to recognize the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Public opinion remains strongly opposed to such reforms – as of 2005, 43.5 percent of Russians supported the re-criminalization of adult homosexual acts.

Speaking to Kasparov.ru, Aleksandr Averin of the Other Russia’s executive committee said that the filing deals specifically with the first of the coalition’s Strategy 31 rallies – thus named for the 31st article of the Russian constitution guaranteeing free assembly – held on May 31, 2009. At the time, Moscow city authorities had refused to officially sanction the rally – a trend that continued with each of the proceeding rallies, which the coalition has held on the 31st of each month with that date. Taking part in an unsanctioned rally in Russia violates federal law, and each of the unsanctioned demonstrations have resulted in scores of protesters being beaten, detained, or both.

The Other Russia lawyer Dmitri Agranovsky asserts in the Strasbourg complaint that by banning the May 31 event, Russian government agencies violated three separate articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 6 – the right to a fair trial, Article 10 – the right to freedom of expression, and Article 11 – the right to freedom of assembly. If accepted for consideration by the court, the case may not be heard for years.

Many Russian human rights groups, journalists, and oppositionists often appeal to the Strasbourg court either after or instead of attempting to navigate Russia’s own judicial system – partially out of fears of corruption, and partially in hopes of gaining the binding mandate issued by the prominent European court. Along with the Strasbourg suit, the Other Russia is also filing suit against the Russian government in Russia’s Constitutional Court.

The coalition is also filing a separate case in Moscow’s Tverskoy Court regarding the most recent Strategy 31 rally held this past March. Rally organizers Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Eduard Limonov and Konstantin Kosyakin are arguing that the Moscow city administration’s refusal to sanction the rally is illegal under Russian law.

The decision was first instigated by a check by a local transportation prosecutor on materials mailed from the United States to the Siberian city of Surgut, which has been a site of conflict between Scientologists and the Russian authorities in the past. A variety of audio and video recordings and books by L. Ron Hubbard were discovered among the materials, and the prosecutor’s office ordered their confiscation for psycholinguistic analysis.

According to today’s press release on the Prosecutor General’s website, experts concluded that Hubbard’s include both direct and veiled calls to instigate social strife, to rise up against state agencies (the judiciary and law enforcement in particular), and to commit violence motivated by ideological and religious hatred.

“Specialists in the fields of psychiatry, psychology and sociology concluded that the materials presented for analysis are not acceptable to distribute, as they undermine the traditional spiritual basis of the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation,” said the press release.

Russian law dictates that materials deemed extremist must be included in the federal list of extremist materials that are banned from distribution on Russian territory.

While it isn’t entirely clear how many Russian citizens adhere to the Church of Scientology, the government has been aggressive in attempts to ban the organization. Most of the time it has been shot down by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in September 2009 that two Scientology branches in Surgut and Nizhnekamsk could not be denied registration as religious organizations. The Russian government was forced to pay a 20 thousand Euro fine and was prohibited outright from banning the Church of Scientology.

Given that Scientology is controversial in countries around the world, Russia’s ban on Hubbard’s works may bring more attention to Russia’s questionable methods for determining just what constitutes extremism. Opposition activists and human rights groups have repeatedly suffered from accusations of extremism, and argue that the definition as given by law is so vague that it allows state agencies to effectively ban whatever groups they deem to be undesirable. In particular, the Russian Internal Ministry’s notorious Center for Extremism Prevention, commonly referred to as Center “E,” has been criticized by oppositionists and rights groups worldwide of torturing detainees and conspiring to hinder lawful acts of political protest.

According to Rechnik resident Yury Kladov, the causes of death were all directly related to the constant psychological pressure and fear resulting from the violent destruction of their homes. Before passing away, he says, some of the elderly blamed the Moscow government directly for their impending deaths.

On this basis, Kladov asserts, the residents have reason to accuse the authorities of genocide.

The demolition of several dozen houses in the small Moscow village began on January 21, after a court ruled in favor of a claim by the Moscow government that the houses were built illegally. Residents maintain that the Soviet-era buildings fall under a “dacha amnesty” program that was implemented for other similar villages. Rechnik, they say, was simply forgotten, and charge that authorities now want to use the area’s prime real estate to build luxury villas.

Two Rechnik residents were hospitalized and 25 detained on January 21 after attempting to block demolition teams from reaching their homes. Since then, the village has employed a variety of measures to call attention to their plight, blocking traffic on Moscow’s main roads and appealing to the United States and Germany for refugee status. Sixty-four resident veterans have appealed to the Federal Veterans Council for support.

At a rally on Monday in central Moscow, Rechnik residents were joined by activists from a multitude of rights and opposition groups, burning a portrait of Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov and calling for him to resign.

Sergei Udaltsov, activist and coordinator of the Left Front political organization, told the approximately 200 people gathered that the consequences of the demolitions in Rechnik stretch far beyond the village itself. “If they go to Rechnik today, then tomorrow they can go to any other Moscow neighborhood and evict us from our homes,” he said.

As of Tuesday, 22 Rechnik houses have been torn down, with at least another 15 slated for demolition.

The coalition leaders also plan to appeal to Russia’s Constitutional Court.

Moscow authorities claimed that the rally would not be allowed due to “winter festivities” that were already scheduled to take place on Triumfalnaya Square, where the Other Russia has traditionally held its Rallies of Dissent.

This month marked the seventh time that the rallies were denied sanction by the Moscow authorities. Coalition leaders began holding the rallies in 2009 on the 31st of every month with that date , in defense of the 31st article of the Russian constitution guaranteeing freedom of assembly. Each has been banned under a variety of pretexts, but organizers have held the protests nevertheless.

“Most likely, it’s not the Moscow government that’s deciding our fate every time,” rally organizers said in Thursday’s statement. “Apparently, it’s the federal authorities that are making the decision, and this is a political decision that contradicts the constitution.” Among the organizers was 82-year old Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a former Soviet dissident and prominent rights activist who was among 60 people detained at the last rally on December 31, 2009. Each of the other protests has ended in a similar manner.

“You have turned Russia into a police state,” the statement continues, addressing the Russian authorities. “The citizens of Russia have been robbed of politics, robbed of elections at all levels: from governors to the deputies of local assemblies. We are trying to win back a small square.”

Beginning this month, regional Other Russia leaders will begin to hold the Rallies of Dissent in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Omsk and Murmansk in addition to Moscow.

Organizers in St. Petersburg have already turned to the courts to defend their right to hold the January 31 rally. Officially, city authorities have banned the demonstration on the basis that it would block traffic around the central Gostiny Dvor shopping complex. Organizer Andrei Dmitriev maintains that the charge is contradictory, and says that while he hopes the courts will allow the protest, it will be held regardless of the judicial outcome.

Friday’s decision makes Russia the last and final member of the Council of Europe to sign the protocol, opening the way for the court to adopt a series of much-needed reforms.

Russian legislators initially refused to sign the protocol in December 2006, saying that the reforms would infringe upon Russian interests.

Specifically, the protocol would provide for a committee of three judges to decide whether or not to consider a complaint that had been filed in the court. Russian deputies also objected to a provision allowing the court to further investigate a complaint before it decided whether or not to take it under consideration.

Statements earlier in the week by State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov met with initial skepticism, with analysts fearing that the rhetoric echoed similar statements by Duma deputies that had previously gone unfulfilled.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has handed down a vast number of rulings against Russia for rights abuses. It has ruled against Russia more than 120 times in cases related to Chechnya alone. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the court of making “politicized” decisions.

According to the RFE/RL news service, the Duma’s decision to finally ratify the protocol is likely political. In particular, a pending $98 billion case from the former oil company Yukos against Russia that accuses the country of driving it into bankruptcy through unfair prosecution is a likely factor.

“The consideration of the Yukos case has been postponed for months on various pretexts. Now that all the possibilities of delays have run out, the ratification lever is being used,” says Russian political analyst Nikolai Petrov. “The Kremlin is interested in mollifying the European Court as much as possible by improving Russia’s image with the judges.”