{"id":8452,"date":"2013-12-24T01:57:19","date_gmt":"2013-12-23T21:57:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adcmemorial.org\/?p=8452"},"modified":"2020-06-15T19:50:33","modified_gmt":"2020-06-15T16:50:33","slug":"the-court-recognized-expression-of-opinion-by-human-rights-defenders-as-political-activity-despite-the-protests-of-the-un","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/adcmemorial.org\/en\/news\/the-court-recognized-expression-of-opinion-by-human-rights-defenders-as-political-activity-despite-the-protests-of-the-un\/","title":{"rendered":"The court recognized \u201cexpression of opinion\u201d by human rights defenders as political activity despite the protests of the UN"},"content":{"rendered":"

On December 23, 2013 Leninsky District Court at last issued the motivated decision<\/a> of Anna Moroz, the judge who had recognized ADC Memorial as \u201cforeign agent\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

In spite of the statements made during the final court session that the overall activity of ADC Memorial, without any specifications, must be recognized as \u201cthe activity of an NGO fulfilling the functions of a foreign agent\u201d, in her motivated decision the judge Moroz returned to the initial ground of the accusation \u2013 the report \u201cRoma, Migrants, Activists \u2013 Victims of Police Abuse\u201d<\/a> submitted by ADC Memorial to the UN Committee Against Torture in 2012, before the new legislation on NGOs came into force. <\/span><\/p>\n

The judge has considered as \u201cproved\u201d the point that ADC Memorial, receiving the funds from foreign sources and publishing this report, acted \u201cin the interests of these sources\u201d and influenced at public opinion, – thus, as the judge believes, the NGO had been doing political activities. However, the judge without any doubts referred to the definition of the political activity given in the Law on Political Parties (as earlier prosecutors did), because the legislation on NGOs does not contain such definition.<\/span><\/p>\n

The judge Moroz has recognized that the opinions of experts<\/a> invited by the sides appeared to be opposite (Mr. Rukinov who defended the position of the prosecutor had not any written text with him, later \u201cThe Judicial Research\u201d signed by two PhD lawyers was submitted to the court; the social and humanitarian expertise by D.Dubrovsky and the expertise of E.Belokurova, a specialist on political sciences, who were invited by ADC Memorial, have proved that the Human Rights report criticizing actions of some police officers in no way can be political activity). But this contradiction was easily avoided by the judge Moroz; she decided that this case do not need expertise at all, as, in her opinion, the debate is only about legal issues and there is no need to invite experts having special knowledge in any sciences. The explanations provided by the experts during court sessions were also totally ignored, because, as the judge Moroz has believed, they just duplicate the written conclusions of the experts (not provided by Rukinov, by the way).