Ibragim Yevloyev, of no relation to his victim, was the former police officer sentenced late last year to two years in a penal colony for what was ruled to be the “accidental” killing of Magomed Yevloyev.

Relatives of the slain opposition leader had filed a complaint on December 11, 2009, demanding that the court give Yevloyev a harsher sentence. They maintain that Yevloyev was murdered intentionally, and his father, Yakhya Yevloyev, has been particularly outspoken. In a December interview with Gazeta.ru, Yakhya asserted that the light sentence had been a result of pressure on the judge from former Internal Minister Musa Medov, an uncle of the accused officer.

“Judge Tumgoyev admitted to me that Medov called and asked him not to punish his nephew,” Yakhya said at the time.

Instead, the Ingush High Court decided on Tuesday to swap the part of the Russian criminal article that Yevloyev was found guilty of for another part of the same article. Now, instead of being officially guilty of “negligent homicide owing to the improper discharge by a person of his professional duties,” he is only guilty of “negligent homicide.” The change results in a much lighter sentence – two years of house arrest.

Human rights groups have stood with Magomed Yevloyev’s relatives since the murder in mid-2008 in maintaining that the killing was intentional and the criminal investigation a sham. The family’s lawyer, Musa Pliyev, has been attempting to initiate proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In light of a chain of murders of Ingush oppositionists that followed Yevloyev’s killing, Pliyev said he is convinced that authorities have issued “a license to shoot down other human rights advocates.”

Magomed Yevloyev was the founder and owner of Ingushetia.ru, an opposition website based in Russia’s volatile Caucasian republic of the same name. On August 31, 2008, Yevloyev wound up by coincidence on the same airplane as Murat Zyazikov, Ingushetia’s notoriously corrupt then-president. A quarrel allegedly broke out, and, upon landing, Yevloyev was detained and dragged into a car. His personal guards attempted to chase the motorcade, but Magomed had already been shot in the temple inside the police vehicle.

The website was then taken over by Ingush oppositionist Maksharip Aushev, who was murdered by unknown assailants last October.

In response to a question concerning disputed regional elections that took place throughout Russia in October, the president stated that the elections were indeed “not sterile.” Medvedev had previously admitted that the elections were flawed, with numerous cases of blatant fraud having been documented after Putin’s leading United Russia party was given overwhelming wins.

At the same time, Medvedev said that he was hindered from admitting that the problems were of any real seriousness by the low number of court complaints contesting the results. “Altogether throughout Russia on the whole there are 450 to 460. In Moscow, where there were also many claims, there are altogether a few more than twenty demands in the courts,” he said.

Communist Party (KPRF) deputy Vadim Solovyov refuted Medvedev’s information. “I don’t know where the president got these figures. I believe he has been misinformed. The KPRF itself filed 47 suits in the courts, and that’s only the beginning,” he told Gazeta.ru. Those who wish to contest the elections have a year to file suit.

Konstantin Ernst, manager of Russia’s Channel One, asked the president if he was acquainted with the phrase “basmanny justice,” a term used mostly by the political opposition to describe a corrupt judicial system. “Yes, I’ve heard this term,” said the president. “I’m not sure that it’s exact and correct.”

He added, however, that if a judicial system exists in Russia that allows “unjust decisions,” then “it is evil, and we must fight it.”

“Such decisions or sentences should be annulled, and if they are taken under the influence of this or that circumstance – whether it’s money, political pressure, or other factures – those who make such sentences and decisions should be subjected to responsibility,” Medvedev asserted.

Ernst later posed a question about political opposition groups that have repeatedly tried and failed to gain official recognition by the Kremlin, referred to here as the “extrasystemic” opposition. “What place in the political life of Russia do you see for representatives of the extrasystemic opposition, for such people as [former Prime Minister Mikhail] Kasyanov and [oppositionist leader Garry] Kasparov?” Ernst asked.

“You know, the so-called extrasystemic opposition, it is extrasystemic because it does not see itself inside the political system. They chose such a place for themselves. It’s their right,” the president responded. “I treat them with respect, if by doing so our legislature is not violated – electoral [legislation], legislation about social unions, about rallies and so on.”

“They too, probably, reflect somebody’s preferences; it’s true that I sometimes have a hard time saying whose. But that’s already a question of inner value; I wouldn’t want to offend anybody,” Medvedev added.

Kasyanov was scathing in his response. Speaking to Gazeta.ru, he asserted that “Medvedev and Putin are to blame for the fact that today in Russia no electoral institution exists from which they and all the rest of the citizens could learn what number of people share the value of a democratic state and wish to live in a free, civilized country.”

Concerning Medvedev’s thesis that he and Kasparov “chose themselves” to exist outside of the political system, Kasyanov stressed that “there is no place for free people in the political system intentionally created by Putin and Medvedev.” Likewise, Solovyov added that the radicalization of the opposition in Russia is a consequence of the actions of authorities.

The concluding questions addressed various aspects of Medvedev’s personal life, including his late bedtime (2:00 am) and his son’s taste in music.

“You know, like many young people – he is now 14 – he’s a fan of so-called alternative rock,” Medvedev said. “I know little about it, but I know some of the groups and even sometimes listen to them, including this group Linkin Park.”

A source in the Kremlin told Gazeta.ru that while the interviewers had previously discussed with the president what topics would come up during the program, the exact questions had not been specified.

However, political analyst Dmitri Oreshkin asserted that “nothing is accidental in these things.” In his opinion, Medvedev’s responses indicated that he was preparing to run for a second term as president – a competition that Prime Minister Putin has publicly stated that he is considering entering as well. If a direct competition between the acting president and current prime minister comes to be, Oreshkin said, then Medvedev needs to be able to have confidence in the integrity of the electoral, judicial, and law enforcement systems – which is why, said Oreshkin, all of those topics were raised during the interview.

Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky said that overall, the program is a sign of the Kremlin’s continued policy of spreading bogus signals to the public. By speaking in the spirit of a “conservative modernizer,” Belkovsky said, Medvedev is allowed “to talk plenty, but not do anything.”

Judges in Russia are requesting the right to initiate criminal proceedings against those attempting to pressure them and impede the due process of law, RIA Novosti reports.

Supreme Court of Arbitration representative Anton Ivanov said that the law would require investigative agencies to respond to accusations of pressure on judges, an urgent problem faced by the Russian judicial system.

Ivanov noted that regardless of judges’ appeals to law enforcement agencies with complaints of outside pressure, nothing has been made clear about criminal proceedings should have been be initiated in result.

As a countermeasure against such interference, Ivanov proposed that judges keep a log of all non-procedural appeals to them in regard to pending court cases.

Evgeny Arkhipov of the Russian lawyers association For Human Rights told Kasparov.ru that, in his opinion, “this initiative comes not from the Supreme Court of Arbitration, but from structures within the Kremlin.”

“It is an attempt,” he said, “to pressure social organizations and independent media, which will be blamed for pressure” on the judges.

If the proposal is made in to law, Arkhipov said, it would allow judges to conduct high-profile proceedings without the participation of the public or media, bringing about massive judicial violations.

Arkhipov, a member of the Solidarity opposition movement, was himself threatened with dismissal in November on the basis of his public activism. The charges were later dropped.

Ivanov’s announcement is reminiscent of the case of a Russian judge dismissed in 2004. Olga Kudeshkina was stripped of her status as a judge after accusing government officials of pressuring her, and for saying that the Moscow City Duma had devolved into a place for “the settling of political, commercial, and other scores.” After being fired, the former judge appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ordered Russia to pay her 10,000 euro in moral damages.

Prokhorov said that the court has ordered Nemtsov, a former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the opposition Solidarity movement, to retract his statement that “For many Muscovites, it has long been no secret that all levels of the Moscow authorities are penetrated with corruption.”

Kommersant has been ordered to print a redaction of another statement by Nemtsov, saying “I consider Luzhkov to be a corrupt official and a thief.”

Additionally, Nemtsov and Kommersant must pay the mayor 500 thousand rubles (approximately $17,000) in damages.

Prokhorov says that they plan to issue several appeals to annul the decision.

A second court case brought by Luzhkov’s billionaire wife and founder of the Inteko construction firm, Elena Baturina, also charges Nemtsov with libel. The case has been postponed until December 22.

The source of discontent that instigated Baturina, Luzhkov, and the Moscow government to turn to the courts was a brochure written and published by Nemtsov entitled “Luzhkov. Results.” In the brochure, Nemtsov blames Luzhkov for the deterioration of life in Moscow during his tenure as mayor, and also for unfairly awarding construction contracts to Inteko, which is said to have once controlled 20 percent of Moscow construction.

“We have irrefutable proof,” Nemtsov wrote, “that Luzhkov favored Inteko while signing permits for commercial development, making Baturina the richest woman in Russia.”

This is not the first such lawsuit filed by Luzhkov. Just weeks ago on November 12, the mayor sued controversial politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky for calling him corrupt. A Moscow court found Eduard Limonov, a leader of the Other Russia coalition and the banned National Bolshevik part, guilty of slandering Luzhkov in a 2007 case. Limonov was ordered to pay the mayor 500 thousand rubles for his statement on Radio Svoboda that “The Moscow courts are under Luzhkov’s control.”

Luzhkov, who has held the post of mayor in Moscow for 17 years and enjoys a 36% approval rating, has come under a recent wave of criticism for corruption, largely involving his wife’s business. Some politicians, however, are worried that the end of Luzhkov’s reign could result in a mayor more directly controlled by the Kremlin.

“The campaign against Luzhkov is being waged by pro-Kremlin forces. There is an order to hound him, but we won’t take part in this,” said Sergei Mitrokhin, leader of the liberal Yabloko party. “We don’t want to see him removed because then they could appoint somebody who was unelected and who would do to Moscow anything the Kremlin happens to want.”

The Kremlin meeting with the council was the second this year, and participants discussed a variety of issues for more than three and a half hours in hopes of achieving concrete results.

In his opening remarks, President Medvedev noted that the law had been amended to reflect the discussion held during the first meeting on April 15 and that he was in favor of extending financial, material, and consultation support to non-profit organizations. He stressed, however, that much more needed to be done. “I am not a supporter of dramatizing anything,” Medvedev said.

Ella Pamfilova, head of the council, assured Medvedev that her group was ready to put forth effort to fight corruption but had strong reservations about the process. “There is one serious problem – who will realize this and how it will be realized,” she said.

Participants told Gazeta.ru that significant time was spent discussing problems of the effectiveness with the war on corruption. Complaints filed by citizens concerning the behavior of public servants are often answered by those same public servants, which Kirill Kabanov, Leader of the National Anti-Corruption Committee, insisted must be prohibited.

Kabanov said that the president was presented with detailed documentation of violations in law enforcement agencies, and that Medvedev understands very well that taking authority away from public servants would not be an easy task. Since many have become accustomed to cashing in on their positions of authority instead of fulfilling their actual duties, says Kabanov, the government must give “a signal to bureaucrats that we’re speaking seriously.”

Pamfilova addressed the scandalous death of 37-year old Hermitage Capital Management lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died on November 16 after being denied medical treatment in a Russian jail, where he had been held for a year without charge. “It’s a frightening tragedy when a 37-year old lawyer perishes and the perpetrators aren’t known, but only under investigation,” she said. Bill Browder of Hermitage Capital Management, which has campaigned against numerous corrupt Russian politicians and bureaucrats, directly blamed the prison for the death. “He was their hostage and they killed their hostage by denying him medical attention,” he told the BBC.

The discussion between the president and the council did not include the fraudulent regional elections on October 11, which the president has admitted were flawed but refused to annul, saying that any issues should be resolved in court. He dismissed Pamfilova’s concern that Russians have a very skeptical view of their judicial system, and that recommendations to resolve controversial problems in the court were largely seen as mockery. “What can be an alternative to an appeal to the court?” Medvedev asked in response. “Either lynching, which we, as you understand, have undertaken at more than once point in the history of our government at various times, or an appeal to the party committee. And both of those are located far from the main path of the development of civilization.”

The presidential council is set to meet again in spring 2010, which Pamfilova has proposed be dedicated to a discussion of the volatile situation in the North Caucuses.

President Medvedev has stated on numerous occasions that the war on corruption was a high priority for his administration. A number of recent scandals, however, have garnered skim responses from the Kremlin. An internal memo was obtained on November 16 by activists that indicted police chiefs of conspiring to illegally disrupt a series of lawful protests. A police officer in Novorossiysk came forward earlier in the month with 150 hours of audio backing up claims he first posted on YouTube detailing corruption in law enforcement agencies. Blatant fraud in the October regional elections has been statistically documented, but was at once acknowledged and dismissed by the president.

According to the press release, the twelve-person commission believes that lawyers have no right to engage in social activism. On this basis, the commission held a session on October 28 to demand an initiation for disciplinary proceedings against Arkhipov.

Arkhipov says he had only been given a day’s notice about the session, despite being required to attend. He asserts that upon arrival, members of the commission “didn’t let me say a single word, blamed me for some absurd things, and screamed endlessly.” He also said that they failed to introduce themselves or name their posts.

The press release asserted that “Such prohibitions are established neither in the law ‘On advocacy’ nor in the ‘Code of Advocatory Ethics,’ which the commission referred to, nor in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.”

In a statement to Kasparov.ru, Moscow City Bar President Henri Reznik affirmed that lawyers have the right to participate in social activism.

In Arkhipov’s opinion, the attack is connected with his role as organizer for an October 10 rally opposing toll roads that the local population had voted down overwhelmingly. His membership in the opposition movement Solidarity also likely plays a role.

The next session of the qualifications commission will take place on November 11, where Arkhipov will be required to explain the basis of his social activism.

A combination of assassination attempts and increasing Kremlin control over the judicial system has created a hostile environment for Russian lawyers in recent years. In a high-profile case last January, Lawyer Stanislav Markelov was shot dead in broad daylight in Moscow along with Novaya Gazeta journalist Anastasia Baburova.

Human rights activist Lev Ponomaryov was scathing of his indictment of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s silence on Markelov’s killing. “The president always talks about superiority of the law. A lawyer was killed carrying out his duties and the president, a lawyer himself, could not even find one word to say.”

He also said, however, that the election results did indeed “reflect citizens’ political party preferences.”

These comments follow Medvedev’s weekend meeting with leaders both from opposition parties and parties normally loyal to the Kremlin. Despite being presented with 120 counts of electoral fraud, he stated that the election results would not be annulled. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and close Putin ally, was a surprising critic of the elections. According to Zhirinovsky, the president stated that election annulments “do not, in principle, happen anywhere in the world, and that the situation has to do with the fact that we must use the judicial process – and we are using it in full force.”

Medvedev did agree that the elections had not been ideal.

Boris Gryzlov, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Putin’s United Russia party, said that by having the meeting, Medvedev had “fulfilled his constitutional role as guarantor of the Constitution.” He proposed that anyone in disagreement over the election results turn to the courts, stressing that there should not be any “political disorder.”

Medvedev requested at the beginning of the meeting that party representatives not turn the discussion into a funeral for democracy. “I intentionally dressed darkly today, thinking that, who knows, you all might be in the mood for a funeral,” said the president.

Deputies from LDPR, A Just Russia, and the Communist party walked out of an October 14 session of the State Duma in a sign of contempt at the election results of October 11. However, after a telephone call with the president the next day, LDPR and A Just Russia agreed to return to their posts; the Communist party returned for the sake of budget discussion.

Elections took place on October 11 in Moscow and 75 other regions of Russia for officials on various levels of government. They delivered sweeping wins for United Russia across the country, continuing the political monopoly it has held since its conception in 2001. Observers noted massive electoral violations, including ballot stuffing and multiple voting with the same absentee ballot.

In Moscow, the majority of opposition candidates had been banned from the ballot. Widespread electoral fraud quickly became clear and has now been statistically documented. Numerous incontrovertible examples highlight the unabashed nature of these violations – opposition party Yabloko, for one, received no votes even at the polling station where its leader, Sergei Mitrokhin, had voted.

Some of Russia’s leading human rights experts and commentators spoke about the significance of the event (below).  Their commentary first appeared in the Yezhednevny Zhurnal and Grani.ru online newspapers.

Viktor Shenderovich, writer:

Thank God that this happened.  But then comes the question – what are we measuring against?  If we measure against the norms of a civilized European country, then this happened with terrible red tape, after torturous efforts from the public, with a great deafness on the part of authorities, and so forth.  If we measure against Uzbekistan or something along those lines, or even the recent unipolar-Putinist times, when absolutely no one was pardoned and no one was released… then this can be seen as progress.  The glass is either half full or half empty.  I, perhaps, will consider it half full.  It’s better this way.

Lev Ponomarev, chair of the For Human Rights movement:

Many readers of Yezhednevny Zhurnal will probably see this as a momentous event.  Others will express great skepticism.  This discussion is taking place: what is happening in the country, “who is mister Medvedev,” and so forth.  Of course, this event will propel this discussion to a new thread, and there’s no arguing that this is a a significant event.  But before all else, this is joy with teary eyes, because we won’t forget what happened around Bakhmina.

I’d like to remind you of one moment which remains particularly clear in this whole history with Bakhmina – when Bakhmina, pregnant and in her seventh month, withdrew her request for pardon.  At the time it was completely evident, that a women in such a condition could only withdraw a pardon request under strong pressure from the system.  We bore witness to the bared teeth of the regime, and the most brutal regime at that.

It was evident that in the end they would free her, after she had a successful birth.  But aside from that, I’d like to reiterate, that the judge, in reading the decision, said that the court took into account the fact that she admitted her guilt and expressed remorse.

We don’t know yet whether the system has finally released her or not.  We don’t know what role is foreseen for her in the trial against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.  We’ll see, and we’ll be watching.  I’m not certain that the system has finally released her from its embrace.  Which is why we must also rejoice with caution.  It seems to me that it’s early to be making any sort of far-reaching conclusions.

Valentina Melnikova, chair of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers:

Thank God, although I didn’t expect this.  Last year, no one was released.  Evidently, Sveta Sorokina needed to go to Medvedev, in order for the court to issue such a ruling.  In general this isn’t normal, that people aren’t released on parole.  There have never been as many people in the women’s prisons as now, all of them are overflowing, the women are held in inhumane conditions.

We didn’t collect signatures for naught, despite everything, by any means necessary.  Everything is very slow in our country.  And after this case, who knows, maybe they’ll start releasing people.  There was a parliamentary hearing recently in the Public Chamber devoted to public control over prisons.  We turned to representatives from the Prosecutor General’s Office, to representatives from the Supreme Court: what is it, guys, do you have an order not to release anyone?  They said: no, of course not… Imprisoning people for economic crimes, whether men or women, is simply idiocy..  This isn’t murder, not robbery.  I am very happy for Svetlana, our joint efforts had an effect after all.

Grigory Chkhartishvili (Boris Akunin), writer:

I am incredibly happy.  I don’t even feel like grumbling: why didn’t they do this sooner, why did they drag it on and on for so long.  Thank you for releasing Svetlana Bakhmina, and even for free, not for two million, like [Vasily] Aleksanyan.  Maybe the late spring is truly starting?  I very much wish it were true.

Stanislav Belkovsky, publicist:

This decision was pretty-much expected.  On the political level, it was made several months ago.  It is another matter that since it was postponed several times, few believed in it.  I’m not speaking, of course, about any kind of deal between Bakhmina and prosecutors.  Dmitry Medvedev has shown that he is prepared to allow the release of certain people and become involved in high-profile cases, but only through the mechanisms of the court – Bakhmina’s pardon appeal was ignored by the president.  With this he has shown the nature and style of his policy in relation to high-profile cases.  I think it is possible that he will continue to become involved in the cases of famous prisoners, but in a way that it won’t be evident, so there won’t be proof of this type of involvement.

Besides that, Medvedev understands the problem of the penitentiary system as a whole: prisons are overcrowded, hundreds of thousands of people who don’t pose any danger to society are serving time.  As result, when dealing with cases that aren’t of a high-profile, but from certain categories of prisoners, it is possible there will be pardons, an institution which was recently restarted after a long pause, and amnesties.  I see what has happened as a positive signal, although it was too long in the coming.

Aleksandr Ryklin, editor-in-chief of the Yezhednevny Zhurnal:

The situation was coming together in such a was that it was clear that in the end, of course, they’d release her.  This, evidently, was not an easy decision, because any decision on Yukos, clearly, is difficult for authorities.  Yukos is such a sensitive nerve that doesn’t give authorities a second of peace.  With Bakhmina, however, it felt like they would release her sooner or later.  But this does not in any way give evidence that there will be any movement relating to the other defendants in the Yukos affair.

Lev Rubinshtein, writer:

Well, first of all, this is absolutely good news.  One can’t help but be pleased when a nursing mother is is allowed to go free.  Regardless of the reasoning used by those who made the decision.

Forgive me, but I don’t believe in any well-meaning humanitarian inclinations on the part of Russia’s leadership.  What can I do – they’ve set an example for themselves with countless base acts in such a way that I see some kind of dirty trick in everything, even an instance of pardon.

And even if it weren’t there: they could have released Svetlana earlier, without mentioning that she should have been imprisoned in the first place.

Because THEY don’t do anything especially nice for no reason, one is left guessing at what they have in mind and what kind of signal they are sending.  Not so much to the public, as to each other.

But in any case- all this fades before absolute joy: Svetlana Bakhmina is free.

Irina Yasina, chair of the Regional Journalism Club:

I heard about it already, and I’m glad.  Considering how many years we have worked to make this happen, you can’t call this a surprise.  That this finally happens is true joy.   Many people have worked for many years, and it finally sunk in for the authorities, thank God.  We will hope for their actions in the future.

translation by theotherrussia.org

“The head of state has taken a careful approach toward opinions that the media and society on the whole have expressed on this matter,” Vladislav Surkov, the first deputy presidential chief of staff, said Tuesday, according to the Interfax news agency.

“Possibly there is a danger that the concepts of state secrets, high treason, and spying could be construed too broadly,” he said. “The bill will be adjusted.”

Political commentators were speculating whether Medvedev’s choice to change the bill indicated a growing rift between Medvedev and Putin.

The legislation would have expanded the legal definition of crimes against the state, including espionage and treason.  Human rights activists had warned that the bill would give the state broad powers that could be used to target any government critic.  An open letter to Medvedev from leaders in the human rights community said the bill was “acting in the spirit of Stalin and Hitler.”

Lev Ponomarev, director of the For Human Rights Movement, welcomed the decision.

“The president has heeded to the opinion of the civil society,” he told Interfax.  “I think that this is a landmark and pivotal moment.

“We welcome this action and hope that it will not be the last time.”

Only recently, the Russian justice system was dealt a grave blow, which in many ways canceled the achievements of the legal reforms of the early 90s. A whole of seven articles of the criminal code (the so-called crimes against the state) were released from the right to a jury trial by the State Duma.

Yet the authorities did not rest with their achievement, and are hurriedly continuing to eliminate those democratic elements still present in the criminal code. The Government has proposed to radically expand the definition of treason (art. 275 of the RF CC [Russian Federation Criminal Code]). Having refused the highly significant and subjective “desire to damage the country’s defense”, [the new definition] regards government treason not as activities, but as a single act against Russia’s security, including her “Constitutional order, sovereignty, territoriality and national integrity.” The understanding of espionage (art. 276 of the RF CC) has also been seriously changed – [authorities] even want to add on advisory “and other” assistance to foreign organizations.

This is a very dangerous and consequential development. If we express its significance concisely, it returns the Russian justice system to the norms of the 1920-1950s. Then, any independent estimate of the situation in the country or its separate areas, not to say criticism of the regime and unsanctioned association with foreigners, was estimated as treason against the motherland.

The creation of modern democratic rights came, not after all else, but when a clear distinction was made between serving an armed enemy and speaking out against the government and the established order. It was not for nothing that revolutionaries from different countries named themselves “patriots” – and even their most zealous opponents did not doubt their patriotism.

Only old world and medieval rulers combined the concept of speaking out against authorities with switching to the enemy’s side.

The drive to legally change speech against the regime and exposing violations of rights and freedoms into helping the country’s enemies signifies the return to the darkest totalitarian methods of combating dissidence.

Several years ago, when authorities immensely expanded the definition of “extremism,” our country was immediately flooded with persecution of dissidence. All the while, the actual number of racist crimes has grown by leaps and bounds.

But now, not only opposition activity, but even just reporting on what happens in the country is equated with serving enemy powers. The proposed law does not define those activities which are classified as criminal: for instance, “activities against the Constitutional order and state integrity (as distinguished from “territoriality”). Furthermore, sanctions against “forcible seizure of power” and “rebellion” already exist (articles 278 and 279 of the RF CC).

82 years ago, the overzealous leaders of bolshevism already equated their party rivals with “enemies of the people,” pronouncing any dissidence to be a grave political crime. The Great Terror started with this, and took away the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, including nearly all the authors of the sadly well-known 58th article of the Criminal Code. Several years later, a comparable law was adopted in the Third Reich.

An now, half a century later, this horrible language is being returned – as an almost complete repeat of the old [wording], which was created to justify totalitarian “cleansing” and widespread massacres. The only difference: the bill’s authors didn’t have the heart to make [people] criminally responsible for their relatives, and membership in the Council of Europe interferes with restoring the death penalty.

We want to warn the current leaders of the country and the deputies, that by opening the door for political repressions in such an obscene haste, they themselves greatly risk falling under that punitive grindstone. Who knows, will their successors count activities like reviewing the Constitution to be treason; or keeping state reserves in foreign currencies; or passing [disputed] border islands to neighboring countries; or concealing the after-effects of ecological disasters; or belonging to a system rife with corruption?

Since the proposed law touches on the fate of the country, we insist that before voting takes place, parliamentary hearings involving the most respected members of the legal and human rights communities be held. The “voting machine” must not simply be turned on. We call on deputies who feel responsibility for Russia’s future to dismiss the given legislation. In any event, the President of the Russian Federation, as a guarantor of rights and freedoms, must not sign it.

We call on politicians and public figures, civil servants and people from the public, intellectuals – to step out together against the adoption of laws acting in the spirit of Stalin and Hitler.

We reserve the right to appeal directly to the people of the Russian Federation, with a call to stop a new “nineteen thirty seven.”

Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Chair of the Moscow Helsinki Group
Svetlana Gannushkina, Citizen’s Assistance Committee
Sergei Kovalev, Memorial
Lev Levinson, Institute for Human Rights
Lev Ponomarev, For Human Rights Movement
Yury Samodurov, Co-Chair of the All-Russian Citizen’s Congress
Yury Ryzhkov, Academic of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chair of the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists.
Ernst Cherniy, executive secretary of the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists
Andrei Buzin, Interregional Voters Union
Sergei Davidis, Union for Solidarity with Political Prisoners
Alexei Prigarin, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party- Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Dmitri Belomestnov, journalist
Yevgeny Ikhlov, journalist
Viktor Sheinis, member of the Political Committee of YABLOKO
Alla Nazimova, sociologist
Boris Vishnevsky, correspondent for the Novaya Gazeta, member of the Bureau of YABLOKO
Mikhail Shneider, executive secretary of the Solidarity political advisory committee
Antuan Arakelyan, Chair of the Saint-Petersburg Dialogue and Action Coalition
Vadim Prokhorov, attorney
The Human Rights Council of St. Petersburg
Natalya Yevdokimova, executive secretary of the Human Rights Council
Aleksandr Golts, journalists
Grigory Amnuel, International Dialogue open club.
David Gorelishvili, human rights activist
Anatoly Rekant, Chair of the Center Division of the For Civil Rights Committee
Nikolai Sorokin, historian, Kostorma
O.I. Orlov, Sergei Buryanov, Sergei Mozogovy, members of the executive committee of the All-Russian Civilian Congress
Mark Feygin
Yury Brovchenko, Glastnost Foundation

Signatures are being collected at zpch@mail.ru

translation by theotherrussia.org