At first, all 39 were charged with three articles of the RF criminal code: article 214 (vandalism), article 167, part 2 “Premeditated destruction of property that has caused significant damage and other grave consequences” and article 278 “Forcible seizure or forcible retention of power” (liable to imprisonment for a 12 to 20 years term). However the Kremlin realized that it has overdone in its anger. On February 16th and 17th they were charged with a new accusation (article 214, 167 and 278 were excluded) on article 212, part 2 “participation in mass disorders”.
The Antimilitary Club, a human rights organization, has developed an analysis of the charges brought against the nazbols. I cite here most of their text:
“The decisions of Moscow’s Prosecutor General’s investigators about the charges brought against the defendants are illegal and unfounded for the following reasons:
Despite the affirmations of the indictment, the NBP ‘leaders’ did not have the goal of organizing mass disorders – flagrant disturbance of the public safety and order and the destabilization of a State institution’s functioning ‘under the pretext of protesting against the foreign and domestic policies carried out by the RF president in Russia.’ A group of young citizens of the Russian Federation has carried out an unsanctioned meeting in the mentioned office against the authorities’ policies, in particular the anti-popular and unreasoned monetization of benefits. It is the fact of carrying out an unsanctioned meeting that is reflected in the charges.
Similarly false is the Prosecutor General’s affirmation that the NBP members hindered the carrying out of the powers of the employees of the reception room of the Administration of the Russian federation’s president, among them leaders of the Russian State, placed on them by the Constitution of the Russian federation and other federal laws and that consist of receiving the population and examining demands from citizens of the Russian Federation, since these powers of the President’s Administration’s employees are not placed on them either by the RF Constitution or other Federal laws, while the Russian State’s leaders do not receive the population in office Number 14 either on the base of normative acts or practically.
The demands of the NBP members were not characteristic of an ultimatum; they did not present the RF President’s resignation, outside of the order stipulated by the RF Constitution, as a condition to liberate the office they occupied. As for the demands of the RF President’s voluntary resignation, they are not illegal, but in the contrary are the realization of the legal right of RF citizens to freedom of speech, stipulated by article 29 of the RF Constitution.
Since the unsanctioned meeting was carried out only in one room of office Number 14, the affirmation of Moscow’s Prosecutor general about the ‘destabilization of the normal functioning of a State institution’ is unfounded.
Besides, neither the hindering of State employees from fulfilling their powers of receiving the population, nor the presentation of ultimatums demanding to remove the Russian Federation president from power, nor the destabilization of the normal functioning of a State institution constitute a criminal offense, stipulated by article 212 part 2 and were mentioned by the Prosecutor General in the text about the charges without any relation to the brought accusation.
The text with the mentioned charges contains unfounded affirmations that the NBP members were flagrantly violating public safety and were expressing clear disrespect to society.
According to article 1 of the RF Law from March 5th 1992 Number 2446-I ‘On safety’ (with amendments from December 25th 1992 and June 25th 2002) ‘the main objects of safety are: the person – his rights and freedoms; society – its material and spiritual values; the State – its constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity.’
The defendants did not infringe on any of the objects of public safety established by the Law. Thus, the Prosecutor General’s affirmation is not based on law.
Equally unfounded is the affirmation that the defendants expressed disrespect to society. In the contrary, the defendants’ motives were deeply social, ethical and directed at the defense of socially significant values and interests: such as the social protection of the pensioners and disabled persons, Russia’s territorial integrity and others.
The qualification of the defendants’ actions as participation in mass disorders (on article 212 part 2 of the RF Criminal code) is unfounded. The RF Criminal code does not give a definition of ‘mass disorders’, however the legal doctrine supposes that ‘the intensity of public threat from mass disorders is defined by the sole existence of a large mass of people, unamenable to control, which creates an important psychological tension in a certain region or district of their residence; secondly, by the spontaneous nature of the behavior of the crowd’s participants’ (Course of criminal law. Volume 4. Special part ed. by the law Ph.D. professor G. N. Borzenkov and the law Ph.D. professor V. S. Komissarov M., 2002) Characterizing mass disorders A. N. Traynin pointed out: ‘The masses are a changing crowd with free access and free exit of the participants (Traynin A. N. Criminal law. Special Part. Crimes against the State and the social order. M. 1927. p.110) It is the indefinitely large circle of participants and the element of spontaneity that allow to separate mass disorders from similar crimes and offenses (delinquency, petty delinquency, premeditated destruction and damage of property, etc.) committed by two individuals or more.
In the decision text the Prosecutor General points out the organized nature of the defendants’ actions and the fact that the circle of participants of the unsanctioned meeting was defined beforehand. Thus, the event of mass disorders was absent in this case.
As mass disorders signs stipulated by article 212 of the RF CC, the Prosecutor General says the defendants made a ‘pogrom’ and destroyed property, which, however, does not correspond to the objective circumstances of the case.
The RF CC does not give a legal definition of the notion of ‘pogrom’. D. N. Ushakov’s explanatory dictionary defines ‘pogrom’ as ‘a reactionary and chauvinist protest, mass beating of some group of population by the crowd, accompanied by murders, destruction and theft of property, organized by the government or the ruling classes. The Jewish pogroms in tsarist Russia, in the Poland of the pans, in the Rumania of the boyars and in fascist Germany. The Armenian pogroms in the Turkey of the sultans. And S. I. Ozhegov’s Russian Dictionary – as ‘a reactionary and chauvinist protest against some national or other group of population, accompanied by destruction and theft of property and mass murders.’ Obviously the defendants’ actions were not accompanied by anything of the sort and cannot be qualified as ‘pogrom’.
The property enumerated in the charges was not destroyed, but only damaged, which also does not give the grounds for qualifying the defendants’ actions by article 212 of the RF CC.
Proceeding from the above-stated, the participants of the unsanctioned meeting in the Public reception room of the RF President’s Administration are not subject to amenability on articles 212 part 2 of the RF CC but can only be subjected to administrative charges stipulated by article 20.2 part 1 and 2 (Violation of the established order of organizing and holding meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets), 20.17 (unauthorized entry in a guarded unit) and 20.1 (petty delinquency – other actions demonstratively violating public order) of the RF AC.”