Justice Or Complicity? LGBT RIGHTS and the RUSSIAN COURTS

Justice or Complicity? LGBT RIGHTS AND THE RUSSIAN COURTS

EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Justice or Complicity?

London, September 2016 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST

Justice or Complicity? LGBT RIGHTS AND THE RUSSIAN COURTS

London, September 2016 The Equal Rights Trust is an independent international organisation whose purpose is to combat discrimination and promote equality as a fundamental human right and a basic principle of social justice.

ISBN: 978-0-9573458-9-8

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by other means without the prior written permission of the publisher, or a licence for restricted copying from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., UK, or the Copyright Clearance Centre, USA.

Equal Rights Trust 314-320 Gray’s Inn Road London WC1X 8DP United Kingdom Tel. +44 (0) 207 610 2786 Fax: +44 (0) 207 833 0277

www.equalrightstrust.org

The Equal Rights Trust is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England, and a registered charity. Company number 5559173. Charity number 1113288.

The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the Equal Rights Trust This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Union.

and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The “Pride” of the LGBT community (…) is a pride not associated with sexual orientation itself, but with the fact that, through a path of total destruction, imprisonment, discrimination and humiliation, the people of the LGBT community showed courage, solidarity and perseverance, having defended their historical right to human dignity.

Anonymous, posted on LGBT youth support website Children-404 20 October 2014

[I]n the [materials published on Children-404] there is information forming a positive image of a man with non-traditional sexual orientation. Belonging to this community increases the self-esteem of an individual, makes his life more comfortable, diverse, joyful, while the negative sides existing in these communities are silenced. The information contained in the materials examined forms an impression of the necessity of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relations: it contains a call for being proud of non-traditional sexual relationships, it creates an illusory attractiveness of the LGBT-community in which normal, clever and educated people interact, it describes this world which is better and more comfortable than the ordinary (…) Thus, it distorts the notion of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.

Comments of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil in upholding the conviction of Children-404’s creator for the offence of “propaganda of homosexuality to minors” 30 November 2015

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements Acronyms Executive Summary

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Structure of the Report 1 1.2 Conceptual Framework 2 1.3 Research Methodology, Limitations and Terminology 2 1.4 Historical and Political Context 7 1.5 Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Russia 11 1.6 Overview of the Russian Judicial System 15 1.6.1 Courts of General Jurisdiction 16 1.6.2 Courts of the Constituent Entities (Regions) 18 1.6.3 Commercial Courts 19 1.6.4 Regional Constitutional Courts 19 1.6.5 Precedent 19 1.6.6 Appointment 20 1.7 Legal Framework Related to Discrimination 21 1.7.1 Major United Nations Treaties Related to Equality 21 1.7.2 Other Treaties Related to Equality 24 1.7.3 Regional Human Rights Treaties 24 1.7.4 Status of International Obligations in Domestic Law 25 1.7.5 National Law 29

2. ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT PERSONS IN COURTS: JUDICIAL PRACTICE 41 2.1 Hate-Motivated Violence against LGBT Persons 41 2.2 “Hate Speech” against LGBT Persons 47 2.3 Discrimination in the Enjoyment of Freedom of Expression and Assembly 53 2.3.1 Overview of Laws Banning Propaganda of “Non-Traditional Sexual Relationships” 56 2.3.2 Application of the Laws Banning “Propaganda of Non- Traditional Sexual Relationships” at the Regional Level 59 2.3.3 Application, and Judicial Review, of the Laws Banning Propaganda of “Non-Traditional Sexual Relationships” at the Federal Level 70 2.3.4 Denial of Permission to Hold Public Assemblies 87 2.3.5 Summary 94 2.4 Freedom of Association: Denial of Registration to LGBT Organisations 98 2.4.1 Rakurs (Arkhangelsk) 99 2.4.2 Movement for Marriage Equality (Moscow) 101 2.4.3 Pride House in Sochi (Krasnodar Region) 102 2.4.4 Rainbow House (Tyumen) 103 2.4.5 Summary 105 2.5 Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Private and Family Life 106 2.5.1 Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships 107 2.5.2 Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships as Family Relationships 112 2.5.3 Right to Adopt 116 2.5.4 Gender Recognition 120 2.5.5 Parental Rights and Gender Reassignment 123 2.6 Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Education and Work 127 2.6.1 Work 127 2.6.2 Education 130

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 133 3.1 Conclusions 133 3.2 Recommendations 136 3.2.1 Recommendations to the Russian Government 137 3.2.2 Recommendations to the Regional and International Community 141 3.2.3 Recommendations to Russian Activists and Lawyers 142

Bibliography 145 Acknowledgements

The lead researcher of this report was Dmitri Bartenev, a lawyer based in St. Petersburg who has defended the rights of many LGBT individuals before the conducted research on international and regional human rights law. Jade and Dmitricourts. thenJade Glenister,co-drafted Legal the report.and Programmes Joanna Whiteman, Officer at the the Trust’sEqual Rights Co-Director, Trust, provided guidance and substantive editorial oversight.

- sian lawyers and LGBT activists. They made it possible for us to produce a com- prehensiveThe Trust was report. greatly During assisted November in finalising and Decemberthe report by2015, a large the numberTrust, together of Rus - sulting with twelve lawyers and advocates working with the LGBT community in Russia.with the Following Russian LGBTthis exercise, Network, Dmitri undertook and Jade a validation revised the of draftthe first report, draft, taking con into account the feedback received. Additional comments were then received - tise on discrimination or economic and social rights. Individuals involved in this processon this second have requested draft from that three we seniordo not Russianname them lawyers due towith the significant sensitivity exper of the report’s contents. We would like to thank each of them for their input.

Two of the Trust’s interns, Rosie Monaghan and Stacy Stroud, provided valuable support with research for the report. Thanks are also due to our previous intern, Sam Barnes, and the Trust’s Advocacy and Programmes Assistant, Tayyiba Bajwa, for their comments on particular parts of the report.

This report has been produced as part of a broader project aimed at tackling discrimination against LGBT persons in Russia. The project has been co-ordinated by Jade Glenister with the managerial oversight of Joanna Whiteman and Jim Fitzger- ald, Co-Directors at the Trust. The Trust was greatly assisted throughout the project and in the production of the report by its in-country partner, the Russian LGBT Network. The Trust wishes to extend its particular thanks to Maria Kozlovskaya, Senior Lawyer and Project Manager at the Russian LGBT Network, who co-ordinated the work in Russia with oversight from Igor Kochetkov, Chairperson of the Network. We would also like to thank all of the lawyers and activists who we have worked with over the course of the project, whose insights and comments have greatly helped us to understand the situation faced by the LGBT community.

The Trust also thanks Istvan Fenyvesi for the design and layout of this report, Kevin Jacks for production of the cover image and Charlotte Broyd for helping to launch and disseminate the report. ix The contents of the report are the sole responsibility of the Equal Rights Trust and This report has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. Union. The Trust wishes to extend its sincere thanks to the staff at the European Unioncan in who no circumstances have supported be our regarded work. as reflecting the position of the European

Acronyms

CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CMCE Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CPRD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union FCPA Federal Consumer Protection Authority FMS Federal Migration Service ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights HIV HCHR High Commissioner for Human Rights HRC Human ImmunodeficiencyRights Committee Virus ICD ILGA International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association ILO International ClassificationLabour Organization of Diseases LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender LGBT+ Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and persons of all other sexualities and genders, such as those who are intersex or asexual NGO Non-governmental organisation ORR Oktyabrskaya Railroad Company RSFSR Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic UN United Nations USSR Union of Soviet Social Republics

Executive Summary

This report examines the jurisprudence of the Russian courts in cases relating that courts have recognised that people are protected from discrimination on groundsto the Russian of their lesbian, sexual gay, orientation. bisexual and Further, transgender in a number (LGBT) of community. cases, courts It findshave upheld the rights of the LGBT individuals. These cases indicate that the judiciary has the potential to be effective in holding discriminators accountable, even - tion from discrimination. However, the majority of cases paint a much bleaker picture.within the In confinesthese cases, of Russia’s the facts non-comprehensive indicate the shocking legal extent framework of the discrimina for protection faced by the LGBT community in Russia and the judgments, which fail to properly apply international and regional human rights law, signal judicial sanc- courts to ensure that LGBT individuals have access to justice for discriminatory violationstioning of thisof their discrimination. rights. There remains significant work to be done for the

The report has been published as one aspect of three years of work by the Equal Rights Trust in Russia, carried out in partnership with the Russian LGBT Net- work. It comes at a particularly crucial time for the LGBT community in Rus- recent years, such as allowing same-sex marriage, Russia is among the countries whichsia and appear globally. to beWhile heading some in countries the other havedirection, seen legislatingsignificant to advances curtail the made rights in of LGBT people. In such environments, the courts have a particularly crucial role to play. However, they cannot act alone. The report therefore also calls on Rus- sia’s legislating authorities, and regional and international human rights bodies discrimination which allow the homophobic views of a majority to restrict the rightsto act decisively. of the LGBT It identifies minority aby particular debunking need the to myth put an that end restricting to “justifications” LGBT free for- dom is necessary to protect public morals, traditional family values, religious beliefs and children’s best interests.

Part 1: Introduction Discrimination against the LGBT community in Russia is widespread and severe, including by the authorities. This report therefore seeks to examine the ability of the LGBT community to obtain justice through the court system when faced with discrimination. It provides a critical examination of the approach of Russian courts to cases involving discrimination and inequality experienced by sexual and gender minorities, taking as its conceptual framework the uni- I fied human rights framework on equality, as expressed in the Declaration of II EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 1 The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed that a number Russian Federation,the Code ofAdministrative Offences andtheLabourCode. of generalprohibitions in theCriminalCode ofdiscrimination, including ofthe vides forright a to the Russianand equality legalframework number a contains prehensive anti-discriminationlaw,19 oftheFederalArticle proConstitution Part 1.7 sets out thelegalframework. Although Russia does not have a com administrative branch and lackoftransparency intheappointmentofjudges. and thattheindependence of the judiciary is undermined by dominance of the President of Russia has the final decision on the appointment of all federal judges binding. Theprocess forexplained,judges isalso appointing the that noting of precedent in Russia, inwhich only decisions of Court the Constitutional are In Part 1.6, the report provides an overview of the courtstructure and system persons who are nationalsofstates where same-sex unionsare recognised. sons who have entered intosame-sex a foreignunion ina state orunmarried been amendedto prohibit adoptionor guardianship of children inRussia by per LGBT relationships to minors,theFamily Code of theRussian Federationhas “anti-propaganda”laws, which prohibitdissemination ofinformationthe about ber ofdiscriminatory laws have beenintroduced. In additionto thewell-known against theLGBT community. Inparticular,the governmental at level, anum stateauthoritarian an becoming seen increasing and levelsof discrimination in Russia. However, theturnof the centuryhasseen Russia move towards rights human of protection the for advance significant a represented 1993 ber the Constitution oftheRussian Federation (FederalConstitution)on 12Decem to democracythe division and ofpower inRussia,the adoptionof that noting In Parts 1.4 and 1.5, the report provides a brief background to the transition the roundtable. seeking editorial commentsontheseconddraftwhich was produced following through and feedback; writtenfollow-up some with report the of draft first the lawyers and LGBT activists intwo phases: through a roundtablediscussion of focuses onLGBT individuals. Thereport was validated bynumber ofRussian a number of cases relatingto transgender individuals, andthisiswhy thereport majority ofcasesrelated togay lesbian, andbisexualindividuals, a small with sexualall and gender minorities. However, itquickly becameapparentthe that taken to theresearch was abroad onewhich sought to identify cases relatingto with expertise indiscrimination law. As is outlined inPart 1.3, the approach The research into Russian jurisprudence was undertaken by aRussian lawyer equality intheenjoyment ofallhumanrights. Principles onEquality. don, 2008,page2. regionaltional, contexts”.and national TheEqualRights Trust, non-discrimination and itsprinciples are “basedonconceptsandjurisprudence developed ininterna and equality to approach unified a promotes Declaration Equality.The on Principles of Declaration the 47 countries in different regions of the world consulted and agreed on asetof principles of equality: In 2008, in aprocess facilitated by theEqualRights Trust, 128 human rightsexperts andequality from 1 The unified framework emphasises the central role ofrolecentral the frameworkemphasises unified The DeclarationPrinciples of onEquality , Lon ------of these provisions provide protection for discrimination on the basis that sex- justice or complicity? ual orientation falls within the notion of a “social group” or “other circumstance”. Arguably, the provisions could also be read as providing protection on the basis of gender identity, but this has not been explicitly recognised by courts.

Part 2: Addressing Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Courts: Judicial Practice executive summary The second part of the report analyses the decisions of Russian courts in cases involving discrimination against LGBT individuals. It covers discrimination in six different areas: hate-motivated violence against LGBT persons; hate speech against LGBT persons; violations of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly of LGBT persons; restrictions on the right to freedom of association of AsLGBT discussed organisations; in Part family 2.1, in and line private with international life; and the right and toregional work and human education. rights standards which require any discriminatory motivation for a crime to be inves- tigated and to constitute an aggravating factor in sentencing, Russia’s Criminal Code provides for aggravated punishment for crimes committed with “enmity a social group includes sexual orientation. However, despite this, the courts are largelywith respect failing to to some recognise social orgroup.” acknowledge The Constitutional homophobic Court hatred has asconfirmed an aggravat that- ing factor in the commission of crimes. Similarly, as discussed in Part 2.2, while hate speech is prohibited in the Criminal Code, courts have repeatedly failed to the LGBT community, including in respect of highly offensive comments. The failurefind a violation of the courts of the to latterrecognise provision instances when of faced hate speechwith hate and speech homophobic directed vio at- lence sends a message that such speech and violence will be tolerated in Russia.

By far the most egregious decisions of the courts have come in their repeated sanctioning of violations of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression of the LGBT community in Russia. Parts 2.3 and 2.4 of the report discuss the failure of the courts to check blatantly discriminatory “anti-propaganda” laws, which are repeatedly used to prohibit speech and public marches advocating for LGBT rights. The approach of the Constitutional Court in upholding the federal anti-propaganda law is indicative of the failure of the courts to apply international and regional human rights standards on the right to non-discrimination. The Court, although noting that the Federal Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, held that the law was not dis- in line with traditional views. The courts have also been prepared to order the closingcriminatory, down explaining of a peer-to-peer that it was support justified network due to for the LGBT need teens, to protect Children-404, children on the basis that statements such as “I am proud to be gay” and “those who dare to reproach me for daring to be different from the majority can go to hell”, amounted to propaganda which must be prohibited in order to protect children. Courts have gone as far as labelling LGBT organisations advocating for tolerance as “extremist” and a threat to national security. The courts’ failure to interpret III IV EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST tions to theRussian Government, theinternational andregional community and In light of these findings, Part 3.2 of the report makes a number of recommenda tantly discriminatory against LGBT persons. bla are which laws of number a including framework, legal the in deficiencies primary aimoftheresearch,a bench. Whilenot thereporthighlights also the crimination or times,demonstrateat thehomophobic on their attitudes own involving theLGBT community, inwhich they fail to recognise clear cases of dis Significantly more problematic is the approach of courts in the majority of cases therediscussion no judicial of discrimination isalmost against LGBT persons. address allegations of discrimination inany way, meaningful withtheresult that have beenanumberofpositive judgements,courtsinthesecasesoften did not in mattersuncertainty them with affecting their everyday lives. Although there access toto justice LGBT the for community of theirrights, violations leaving Partreport3.1 ofthe approachthe concludesthat oftheRussian courtsdenies Part 3:Conclusions andRecommendations sanctioned by thecourts. tive employertheir sexual finds about orientation have beenbothcriticised and fact scenarios inwhich an LGBT individual is denied a jobwhen their prospec similar – report the of part this in evident particularly also is approach courts’ cation, examining bothpositive and negative decisions. The inconsistency of the The final section of the report, Part 2.6, considers the rights to work and to edu and awoman”, to order thatheberemoved from hercare. son to form a “distorted understand of traditionalrelationships between aman revealingopinion that transgendera parent’s gender identity would causeher ily andprivate life for LGBT individuals. For example,a courtrelied expert onan rely on traditional values as a justification for interferences with the right to fam addition, andarguably more problematically,to isthecourtswillingness again individuals to have anybasic aspectsoftheir everyday certaintyabout lives. In sanctioned by a justice of the peace. This inconstancy makes it difficult for LGBT the consequences of such achangeby providing a newemployment record was itly noted incasesrelatingto change oflegal a gender, failure a to implement whileple, therights to private life andto non-discrimination have beenexplic approach ofthecourtsisparticularly inconsistentin thesespheres. For exam the that demonstrates – recognition gender and individuals LGBT of rights tal paren relationships, same-sex of recognition to relates which – identified was munity.thereWhile islimited jurisprudence in thisarea,the jurisprudence that the courts arethat again largely failingto protect these rights for the LGBT com relationIn to therights to familyprivate and life, Part2.5 ofthereport concludes LGBT rights, anditisdifficultto now seewhat spaceremains. allowed the authorities to continously narrow thespacefordiscussion public of Russian law inlinewithinternational andregional humanrights standards has also to Russian activists and lawyers advocating for LGBT rights. At thenational ------level, it recommends that the existing national legal framework be interpreted justice or complicity? to ensure that prohibitions of discrimination include sexual orientation and gen- - ential treatment must be strictly necessary. It also calls on the Russian author- itiesder identity to review as the protected legal framework characteristics and repeal and that discriminatory any justifications laws, such for differas the “anti-propaganda” laws. A range of other measures are recommended to combat discrimination against the LGBT community, including the introduction of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, judicial training and public education. executive summary The recommendations call on the regional and international human rights com- - nity in Russia and also globally. The rights to equality and non-discrimination interpretedmunity to take properly a firmer do stance not allow against for the discrimination LGBT community against to the be LGBTafforded commu what is often considered “different but equal” treatment, particularly in the sphere - tional values and public morals can never be based on the views of the majorityof family alone. andThe privaterecommendations life. Justifications welcome of differential the appointment treatment of the based Independent on tradi Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and call for this mandate to be fully supported by other UN bodies.

Finally, the report makes a series of recommendations which aim to provide guidance to Russian lawyers and activists working with the LGBT community and taking cases before the Russian courts. It is hoped that this report will assist - cult environment. them as they continue to work to combat discrimination in a particularly diffi

1. INTRODUCTION

Sexual and gender minorities in Russia have long faced discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights, and these violations are becoming increasingly egre- increasing restrictions on their ability to advocate for equality, including through thegious. denial Members of their of rightssexual toand freedom gender of minorities expression, face association significant and violence assembly. and They also face discrimination when seeking recognition of their right to a family life, and in seeking education and employment opportunities.1

This report explores the way in which Russian courts respond to these violations, discussing the approach of the courts to cases which involve discrimination against sexual and gender minorities in the enjoyment of their rights, and their approach to the right to non-discrimination itself. The focus on jurisprudence was adopted for two reasons. Firstly, the ability to seek and obtain redress for discrimination is a critical component of ensuring the right to non-discrimination and other human rights.2 many members of civil society in Russia reporting that courts were not providing this Secondly,redress, but we with identified no comprehensive that there was examination a gap in this of regard court practice in Russia, having with been undertaken. The report therefore seeks to fill this gap. 1.1 Purpose and Structure of the Report The purpose of this report is to critically examine the approach of Russian courts to cases involving discrimination and inequality experienced by sexual and gender minorities. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the case law of Russian courts relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, highlighting decisions that may be both considered positive (in that they provide redress for discrimination) and negative (where no redress for discrimination is provided despite international and European human rights law

Russian judiciary is failing to uphold the rights to equality and non-discrimina- tionrequiring in relation provision to sexual of such orientation redress). and As a gender result, identitythe report as theyidentifies are understood where the to apply in international and European human rights law.

The report comprises three parts. Part One sets out the report’s purpose and structure, the conceptual framework that has guided the work and the research

1 A brief overview is provided in Part 1.5. 1 2 The Equal Rights Trust, Declaration of Principles on Equality, London, 2008, Principles 18 and 22. 2 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 3 toricalcontext andpolitical and ondiscrimination against LGBT individuals through desk-based research ofexistingpublished resources. Thepartsonhis Part 1 of the 1.3 der minorityorassociated withsuchaminority. discrimination of bothdirect andindirect discrimination and alsocases which involved accommodation ofdifference.particular, In the and indirect discrimination also demands but positive actionandthereasonable rights.human notes It not onlyequality full that requires freedom from direct This framework emphasises the integralrole in theenjoyment ofequality ofall perspective onequality, asexpressed in theDeclarationof PrinciplesonEquality. This 1.2 place to protect sexual andgenderminoritiesfrom discrimination. both thelegalframework should bein mechanisms that andimplementation courts’ approach inLGBT cases, recommendations are alsomadeinrelation to ber of discriminatory laws in placeRussia as well astheinadequacyof the the assessment of the courts’approach discussed in Part 2.Inlight of the num PartThree and parental rights; andtherights to work andto education. family association; and assembly expression, of freedom punishment; or ment report. These parts are: theright to befree from inhumanor degrading treat accordance with the human rights issues identified in the cases discussed in this crimination against LGBT persons. This Part is divided into a numberof parts in Part Two framework aimedatprotecting people from discrimination. legal Russian the and operates; precedence legal which in way the and Russia view oftheRussiansystem, judicial the different including types ofcourtsin over an Russia; in community (LGBT) transgender and bisexualgay, lesbian, the by faced discrimination the on background brief a set; is report the which textualbackground consists offour parts:thehistoricalcontext andpolitical in background to thejurisprudence which is thesubject ofthereport. This con methodology,notea including onterminology.providesalso It the contextual tional, regional andnationalcontexts”. non-discrimination and itsprinciples are “basedonconceptsandjurisprudence developed ininterna and equality to approach unified a promotes Declaration Equality.The on Principles of Declaration the 47 countries in different regions of the world consulted and agreed on asetof principles of equality: In 2008, in aprocess facilitated by theEqualRights Trust, 128 human rightsexperts andequality from report Research Methodology, Limitations and Terminology Conceptual Framework examines the judicialpractice of Russian courts with regard to dis takes frameworkas itsconceptual theunified human rights contains the report’sthe contains recommendations, conclusionsand report against individuals perceived to be members of a sexualor gen , which provides the contextualbackground, was developed Ibid ., p.2. report aim s to capture instances based on ------3 -

- justice or complicity? idation process (described in more detail below). The parts on Russia’s inter- nationalbenefitted and from European comments legal made obligations by the Russianwere primarily LGBT Network drawn from during the the United val Nations treaty collection database4 Council of Europe5 respectively. and ratification statistics published by the The main Part of the report - sions of the Russian courts in relation to sexual and gender minorities since the adoption of the Constitution, Partof the 2, Russianpresents Federation the findings (Federal of a review Constitution) of deci introduction on 12 December 1993. This point in time was chosen as the starting point for the research as it coincides with the adoption of the new Federal Constitution, which introduced the concept of an enforceable protection against discrimination in the Russian legal order.6

The report sought to take an inclusive approach by identifying cases involving all sexual orientations and gender identities. Thus from the outset, the research sought to identify cases relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, and persons of all other sexualities and genders, such as those who are intersex or asexual (LGBT+) widely accepted by the LGBT+ community, including those advocating for equal rights for LGBT+ individuals., However,and took itits became definition apparent of terms from from the commencethose most- ment of the research that the majority of cases related to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, with a smaller number of cases in the spheres of family and private life relating to transgender individuals. Thus the report uses the acronym relevant to LGBT+. LGBT to refer to its findings, but notes that there may be cases which are also The following terms are used:

Bisexual refers to a person who is emotionally and/or sexually attracted to persons of more than one gender.7

Gay refers to men who are emotionally and/or sexually attracted to men. The term is often used to cover both men and women who are

4 United Nations, United Nations Treaty Series Online Collection, available at: https://treaties.un.org. 5 en/web/conventions/search-on-states/-/conventions/chartStats/RUS. Council of Europe, “Statistics on signatures and ratifications: Russia”, available at: http://www.coe.int/ 6 Article 123 of the 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (the “Stalin” Con- stitution) declared equality before the law of all Soviet citizens regardless of their nationality and race in all spheres of life and Article 122 declared equality of women and men. Chapter 6 (“Soviet Citizenship. Equality of Citizens”) of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR (the “Brezhnev” Constitution) established detailed guarantees of equality in Articles 33 to 38. Similar provisions were included in the Russian So- viet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) Constitutions. However, these guarantees were not directly enforceable in courts during the Soviet rule. 7 ILGA-Europe, “ILGA-Europe Glossary”, available at: http://old.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/glos- - 3 ry-terms. sary; and Stonewall, “Glossary of Terms”, available at: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossa 4 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 13 12 11 10 9 8 14

Database: Glossary”, available at:htt we-are; andM See, for example,Pride in London, “Whowe are”, availableat: http://prideinlondon.org/about-us/who- Ibid. See above, note 7. DSD.pdf; an Africa, availa intersex?”, available at: http://www.isna.o availablehttp at: Organisation Internationaledes Inte tation andGenderIdentity, 2008;andseeILGA-Europe, above, note 7. Yogyakartaof InternationalPrinciples ontheApplication RightsHuman Lawin relation to SexualOrien to men. in accordance with their own identification, ILGA-Europe notes that gay should only be used in reference reference/offensive. Whilesome sources note thatgay is used in reference to both menandwomen and Ibid than onegender.” individualswith, tions differenta of gender, gender,same the moreor tional, affectional andsexual attraction to, andintimate andsexual rela Sexual orientation sex persons. LGBTI and genders, suchasthosewho are intersex orasexual. LGBT+ LGBT to women. Lesbian deliberately alter their own anatomical characteristics. be defined as one or the other sex. The term does not include those who sexes orlacksomeofthebiologicalattributes considered necessaryto female. Anintersexor personmay have thebiologicalattributes ofboth male being of notions binary typical fit not does that anatomy ual Intersex gender suchasdress, speechandmannerisms. and includesaperson’s senseoftheirbody andotherexpressions of may notcorrespond withthesex thattheperson was assignedatbirth their own gender, whether female, maleorsomethingelse.Thismay or Gender identity to ensure clarity. attracted to theirown sex, butinthis See YogyakartaPrinciples, above, note 9. See . andGLAAD, “GLAAD Media Reference Guide is theacronym for lesbian,gay, bisexual andtransgender. is the acronymis the for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender inter and is the acronymthe is for LGBT other sexualitiesall and alsoincludes refers to women who are emotionally and/orsexually attracted d seeILGA-Europe, above, note 7. refers to thosepeoplewho are born withreproductive orsex b Y LGBT PLUS, “Why thePlus?”, av 11 le at: http://www.intersex.org.za/images/trainat: le ://oiiinternational.com/2533/welcome/; Intersex Society of North Ame North of Society Intersex ://oiiinternational.com/2533/welcome/; refersto aperson’sindividual experience orsenseof 8 14 refers to “eachperson’s capacityfor profound emo p://www.coe.int/en/web/sogidatabase/glossary. rsexués – Organization Intersex International, “What is intersex?”,is “What International, Intersex Organization – rsexués rg/faq/what_is_intersex; and Gr also note 7; GLAAD, note 8; and Council of Europe, “SOGI Europe, of Council and 8; note GLAAD, 7; note also ailable at:htt – Terms– Avoid”,to availablehttp://www.glaad.org/ at: report p://www.mylgbtplus.org/why-the-plus. isusedonly to refer to men ing_materials/Intersex_Booklet_HIVOS- 9 oss, S., Intersex,oss, S., Intersex South 10 13 12 rica, “Wh - - - - at is at - justice or complicity? Transgender is an umbrella term which describes persons whose gender identity or expression is not the same as that assigned to them at birth. “It includes those people who feel they have to, prefer to, or choose to, whether by clothing, accessories, mannerisms, speech pat-

from the expectations of the gender role assigned to them at birth.”15 terns, cosmetics or body modification, present themselves differently introduction The report refers to same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships as a way to distinguish between the differing legal treatment of the two in Russia.16 The terminology adopted in the Russian legal context is often outdated or offensive (such as use of the expression “non-traditional sexual relationships”), but has been used in the report - uals and their lives are referred to in the Russian legal context. It should also be noted that at a number of points, to accurately the reports reflect quotes the homophobicway in which or LGBT transphobic individ statements which are deeply offensive. The report reproduces these statements without amendment or censorship, in the interests of presenting an accurate picture of the experiences of the LGBT persons affected.

In order to try to identify as many cases as possible, cases were considered anrelevant LGBT whenindividual it was or identified activist (for that: example, the case where was brought a parent by of or a on child behalf was of an a self-identifying LGBT individual or activist; the facts of the case directly involved law that referred to sexual orientation, gender identity, “homosexuality” (or LGBT individual in family proceedings); the case involved a regional or federal case involved examination of views espoused by one of the parties in relation “homosexualism”, which is the term used in the Russian context) or LGBT; the cases where the court discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, “homosexuality”to sexual (or orientation, “homosexualism”) gender identity, or LGBT. or Cases LGBT which (either referred positive to or discriminationnegative); and more broadly (i.e. that did not have one of the previously mentioned links to sexual orientation or gender identity) were not included unless they provided an analogous example or were considered a leading case on discrimination (such as the cases from the higher Russian courts, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court).

The report aimed to capture cases under each of the following categories:

i. restrictions on human rights and liberties on the basis of sexual orien-

tation or gender identity; iv.ii. prosecutionfailure to provide on the reasonable basis of sexual accommodation orientation toor LGBT+ gender individuals; identity, or on iii. thehate-motivated basis of ideas crimes advocated or other about offences sexual against orientation LGBT+ or individuals;gender identity. and

15 5 16 See above,GLAAD, note above, 9, Council note 8. of Europe; ILGA-Europe; and Stonewall. 6 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST second draft ofthe into thesecond draft of the and additionalcommentsmadefollowingble, the roundtable, were incorporated roundtablein Russiaheld December 2015. in The feedbackfrom thisroundta Russian legalexperts LGBT and advocates,discussed one-daythen and during a draftthe first of A occurred, thisisclearly indicated in thefootnotes by reference to therelevant body. has this where proceedings; domestic the of explanation an for basis the formed domestic decisionsmadeby regional andinternational humanrights bodieshave located onthewebsite oftherelevant court. Petersburg)ing Out(St. were reviewed inorder to identify casesthatwere then sinki Group, theRussian LGBT Network, Human Rights Resource Center andCom of Russian humanrights organisations andactivist groups, suchasMoscow Hel In afew instances,thelawyers provided copiesofthedecisions. Similarly, studies such thatthesecasescouldthenbelocated onthewebsites ofindividual courts. informationvided cases thatthey about had beeninvolved in orwere aware of, not accurate intheirdescriptionsofcases).Inaddition,individual lawyers pro all databasesare comprehensive) or qualityofthedatabase(somedatabasesare databases were usedinorder to compensate for limitationsineither coverage (not tion”, “genderidentity”, “gay”, “transgender” and“lesbian”. Anumberof different (and variations suchas“homosexuality” and“homosexualism”), “sexual orienta cases inthesedatabases,including“discrimination”, “homophobia”, “homosexual” such asRospravosudie.com. Awiderange of search terms were usedto identify Plus, Garant, andKodeks, andlegal databasesfor which nofee ispayable for use by commercial providers (for which afee ispayable for use)suchasConsultant of different ways. Relevant caseswere searched for inlegal databasesmaintained the Russian courts.Inlight oftheselimitations,caseswere located inanumber use ofkey terms. Thereno comprehensive isalso database of alljurisprudenceof inadequate andthere isnoabilityto search for decisionsonthewebsites by the sions ontheirwebsites. However, inpractice, theaccuracy ofthisinformation is of relevance noted above. Russian courtsare required by law to publishtheirdeci A range ofsources were usedto identifyandobtaincaseswhich metthecriteria faced onthebasis ofsexual orientationorgenderidentity. relatingto theneedto take positivemeasures action inrespect ofdisadvantage ered as anexampleof negative caselaw. of orientation or gender identity. Thefailure by ajudgeto address obviousan case included because thecentral issue was adifference in treatment basedonsexual orientation or gender identity he or she wanted to advocate, suchcases were orientation orgenderidentity,or becauseofthenature sexual ofideasabout legalor a sufferedentity disadvantageparticular a of hisorhersexualbecause explicitlyadvanced asabasisfor the claimsor defences. However,not were where anindividual arguments discrimination identified, cases the of many In 17

prima facie able sources. Equalthe request, Upon Rights Trust mayprovide be foundcannot that cases through publicly avail discrimination against anLGBT person is, in this regard, consid report report (in both English (inboth andRussian) was sent tonumber of a throughout July andAugust2016, with three experts report . Further comments were thensought onthe

The research did not identify any cases 17 In a few instances, summaries of Inafew instances, summariesof ------on Russian law and jurisprudence providing comments that were incorporated justice or complicity? intoAlthough the final every draft. effort has been made to identify all relevant jurisprudence since the adoption of the Federal Constitution at the end of 1993, given the limitations included. In addition, while courts are generally required to publish their decisions, notedthere areabove, a number it is inevitable of situations that some in which cases courts will have are not prohibited have been from identified publishing and

decisions due to the nature of the information they discuss (for example, cases introduction involving personal information such as adoption records or medical information). Finally, parties to a case may request that the court does not publish a decision where sensitive personal information would be revealed. In total, around 1,000 cases were reviewed, of which approximately 200 were considered to meet our criteria and thus considered to be related to discrimination against LGBT persons.

1.4 Historical and Political Context In order to understand the discrimination faced by LGBT individuals in Russia today, and also the approach of the Russian judiciary to cases involving discrimination, an understanding of the political context in Russia is required. This Part therefore provides a brief background to the transition to democracy and the division of power in Russia.

Until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia existed as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).18 The RSFSR was established in 1917 as a sovereign State after the October Revolution and the end of the Russian Empire.19 In 1922, the RSFSR signed a treaty with three other soviet republics, which established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), a sovereign State.20 The RSFSR was therefore a federation within the federation. Although known as sovereign states, the USSR acted as a single sovereign federative State ineach international of the fifteen relations republics and which became eventually one of the made superpowers up the USSR which were established formally the United Nations in 1945.21 The sovereignty of soviet republics within the in reality the government was highly centralised.22 USSR (as well as republics within the RSFSR) was therefore a mere declaration;

18 The name “RSFSR” came into existence in 1918 to refer to “Russia Socialist Federative Soviet Republic”. Following the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR in 1936, the name was changed to “Russia Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” but the acronym remained the same. 19 Resolution of the Provisional Government on declaring Russia a Republic

, 1 September 1917 (Постанов- ление Временного правительства о провозглашении России республикой, от 1 сентября 1917 года). 20 AfterThe treaty the October establishing 1917 revolution the USSR thewas unofficial signed by name the RSFRS,of the State the Ukrainianbecame “Soviet Socialist Russia”. Soviet Republic, the Belorussian Socialist Soviet Republic and the Zakavkazskaya Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. 21 However, due to the desire of the USSR to have more socialist states in the United Nations, the Belorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics became two of the states that founded the United Nations in 1945 and formally remained members. 22 Although the 1936 and 1977 Constitutions of the USSR described the republics as “sovereign” states, 7 all key political and legislative powers were reserved to the USSR. 8 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 theless, national entities (republics) have certain symbolic privileges, such as as to “regions”) referred have powers equal in their relationship theFederation. with Never unofficially (sometimes entities territorial all names, different andfourcities, oneautonomous autonomous oblast, provinces. ferent typesofentities:22 republics,nine provinces, three46 oblasts, federal eration. The generic term,entities, is used constituent because there are six dif fed the of subjects – entities constituent 85 of consists Russia federation, a As of therepresentatives appointed by theregions). the President (who can appointanumbernomore than10% of the totalnumber and executive bodies (there are two representatives from each region), and by the Council of theFederation (senators) are appointed by regional legislative (parliamentarians)of theDuma are elected bywhereas thepublic, membersof (the lower house) and theCouncilof the Federation (theupperhouse). Members State institutions. is the key political figure although he or she does not formally belong to any of Federalthe Constitution,Russia becameasemi-presidential republic.The President In 1993, anew FederalConstitution was enacted by referendum. held by theUSSRasapermanent member oftheUNSecurityCouncil. by otherstates. successor oftheUSSRininternational relations, adeclaration which was accepted 1991. ezha Accords by theRussian, Ukrainian andBelarusianpresidents on8December endorsed by theremaining 12republics following theconclusionofBelov on 26December1991by theSupreme Council oftheSoviet Unionandeventually republics oftheUSSR. tic States (Estonia, LithuaniaandLatvia),which atthattimewere three ofthe15 ence when theUSSRwas dissolved in1991,following thesecession oftheBal Modern Russia, or the Russian Federation as it is officially known, came into exist 30

See above, note 27,Article65. порядке“О СобранияРоссийской формированияСовета ФедерацииФедерального Федерации”). sian Federation”, 3 December 2012, No. 229-FZ (Федеральный закон от 3 декабря 2012 года № 229-ФЗ FederalLaw, Procedurethe “On ofFormingFederation ofthe Council oftheFederal Assembly Rus ofthe Ibid. Федерации, Российской 12 декабря1993года). (Конституция Constitution) al Constitution oftheRussian Federation,enacted byvote popular on 12December 1993 (Feder and received noobjectionsby otherStates. 24 декабря 1991 года). The notice of 24 December 1991 was acknowledged by the UN Secretary General РоссийскойПрезидента от(Письмо 1991 Федерации Russian December the President24 Letterof of иностранных дел Российской от Федарации 13января1992года). Министерства (Нота 1991 December 24 of President Russian the of letter the mitting Содружестваобразовании Независимых Государств, от 8декабря1991года). Treaty Establishingthe Commonwealth theof StatesIndependent The independenceoftheBalticstates was recognised by theUSSRin1991. Note verbaleby theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation dated 13 January 1992, trans 24 , Article83. Thenewly independentRussian Federation declared itscontinuityasthe 25 Thisallowed theRussian Federation to retain theseatpreviously 28 Thefederalbicameral parliament consists of theState Duma 23 Thedecisionto dissolve theUSSRwas formally enacted 29 принята 8 eebr 91 Сгаеи об (Соглашение 1991 December 8 ,

всенародным 30 Despite their 27

26 Under the голосованием

------the right to have their own constitutions and national languages.31 Following justice or complicity? the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia, the status of this territory continues to be contested. However, Russia considers the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to be the 84th and the 85th subjects of the Russian Federation.32

The Federal Constitution was a major step forward in terms of advancing human

rights, declaringMan, his rights for the and first freedoms time that: shall be the supreme value. It shall be introduction a duty of the state to recognise, respect and protect the rights and liberties of man and citizen.33

Article 18 goes on to state that:

The rights and liberties of man and citizen shall have direct effect. They shall determine the meaning, content and application of the laws, and the activities of the legislative and executive branches and local self-government, and shall be secured by the judiciary.

In addition, the Federal Constitution provides for supremacy of international treaties over domestic law (a point discussed in further detail in Part 1.7.5):

The commonly recognised principles and norms of international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation stipulates other rules than those stipulated by the law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.34

The Federal Constitution also established the Constitutional Court, which is vested with the power to accept individual petitions against unconstitutional laws, thus introducing the notion of constitutional control over the legislature.35

31 Ibid., Article 66. 32 Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014, No. 6-FKZ, on admission to the Russian Federation of the Re-

and the federal city of Sevastopol ( (public of Crimea and the formation within the Russian Federation of new entities – the Republic of Crimea Федеральный конституционный закон от 21.03.2014 № 6-ФКЗ ред. от 29.12.2015) “О”). принятии Given that, в asРоссийскую a matter of ФедерациюRussian law, theРеспублики Republic ofКрым Crimea и образовании and Sevastopol в areсоставе subjects Российской of the federation, Федерации this report новых treatsсубъектов them as –such. Республики However, Крымthe Equal и города Rights Trustфедерального notes that theзначения annexationСевастополя of these territories has been condemned by a United Nations General Assembly Resolu- tion (United Nations General Assembly, Resolution No. 28/262, Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UN Doc. A/RES/68/262, 1 April 2014) and that the vast majority of states do not recognise the territories as federal subjects of the Russian Federation. As such, the Equal Rights Trust considers these territories of Ukraine in all respects. The inclusion of these territories as federal subjects in this report in no way constitutes an endorsement of the Russian Federation’s claims to sovereignty. 33 See above, note 27, report has used the translation available on the website of the Supreme Court, available at: http://www. Article 2. There is no official English translation. of the Federal Constitution. This 34 Ibid., Article 15(4). supcourt.ru/catalog.php?c1=English&c2=Documents&c3=&id=6806 9 35 Ibid., Article 125. 10 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 41 40 39 38 37 36 significantly curtailedthedemocratic achievements oftheearly 1990s. tion ofapresident who hasalready served two consecutive terms, thischangehas together withaprevious rulingoftheConstitutional Court endorsingthere-elec Takenyears. six to fourfrom president the of office of term the extendto 2008 in viewed by many asthereal government. facto minister, includingtheministers for defence, foreign affairs andtheinterior. ministers. Thekey ministers report directly to thepresident andnotto theprime appoints theprimeminister withtheconsentofparliament andappointsall are adapted to thepresident’s decisions,bethey formal orinformal. mination mustbedoneonthebasisoffederal laws, thereality isthat federal laws dent determines Russia’s internal andexternal politics.Whileformally thisdeter The broad andincreasing powers ofthepresident are alsoofconcern. Thepresi until then,beenregarded astheonly truly independentjudicialbranch. wasstitution amended to the Supreme abolish Commercialwhich had, Court, lawsstitutional adopted by the Federal Parliament. Court repeatedlying astheConstitutional refuses to criticise manifestly uncon controlThe notionofconstitutional of thelegislature its originalmean haslost starkbut transformation of Russia from ademocracy to anauthoritarianstate. Since 2000, many decisionsCourt have oftheConstitutional endorsed a gradual able for theirpartinhumanrights violationstakingplaceunderSoviet rule. Unlike intheBalticStates, nomeasures were taken inRussia to holdjudgesaccount since 1989when hebecamethePresident oftheformer Supreme Court oftheUSSR. office in been has Lebedev,VyacheslavFederation, Russian the of Court Supreme the legal regime inmany spheres, includingthejudiciary. ThePresident ofthe dominate, even and influenced, greatly has legacy Soviet the progress, this Despite 42

( Law oftheRussian Federation, 30December 2008,No.6-FKZ,amending theFederal Constitution право Президента Российской Федерации: вчера morrow”, See Zuikov, A.V. “Administration of the President of the Russian Federation: Yesterday, Today andTo Федерации от12мая vices and some other “power” agencies directly report to the President ( fence, Ministry ofInternal Affairs, MinistryofForeign Affairs, MinistryofJustice,FederalSecurity Ser accordanceIn the Decree with ofthePresident of Russia of12May 2008, No. 724, the MinistryofDe Административное Лютягина of the Russian Federation”, See Volkov, A.M.andLyutyaginathe roleE.A, “On of the Administration andtheplace of the President Российской Федерации от 5 февраля Law of theRussian Federation, 5February 2014,No.2-FKZ, amendingtheFederal Constitution ( Российской Федерацииот23сентября2014года№24-П). garding the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” (Постановление 2014 годаCourt №8-П);andJudgmentof of the Constitutional Russia, 23 September 2014, No. 24-P, re (Постановление law agents” “foreign See, for example,Court ofRussia, JudgmentoftheConstitutional 8April2014, No. 10-P, regarding the lack of The convictions for anti-Soviet activities were overturned throughout the1990s and 2000s due to the Закон Российской Федерации от 30 декабря 2008 года “О поправке “О года 2008 декабря 30 от Федерации Российской Закон presidential powers are even broader, andthePresidential Administration is . -М.: actus reus Constitutional andMunicipalLaw Е.А. К Е.А. Юрист . вопросу , 2009,№8.-С.21–29).

право 2008года №724). о и Administrative Law and Procedure роли процесс и месте 2014 года “О . -М.: Конституционного

Юрист Администрации Президента Российской Федерации // Федерации Российской Президента Администрации , Vl 8 20, p 2–9 ( 21–29 pp. 2009, 8, Vol. , сегодня 41 TheFederal Constitution was amended , 2012,№3.-С.34–39). поправке , завтра

Суда Российской Федерации от 8 апреля 8 от Федерации Российской Суда к к // Конституции Российской Федерации”). , Vol. 3, 2012, pp. 34-39 ( Конституционное 37 In2013, the FederalCon Указ Президента Российской Президента Указ Зуйков к Конституции РоссийскойКонституции Конституционного А.В. 39 и и Thepresident Администрация муниципальное 42 Волков

38 36

40 Закон Закон А.М., А.М.,

Суда

De De ------

Of particular relevance to this report, recent years have seen the adoption of justice or complicity? increasingly authoritarian laws and policies, virtually outlawing any foreign con- nections with civil society and limiting the promotion of human rights values.43

The Russian Orthodox Church, persecuted during Soviet times, has become a close ally of the State in promoting the alienation of Russia from the “intrusive” - cal independence.44 Church leaders have been vocal in supporting national- istinfluence rhetoric of and the anti-LGBTWest, seen initiatives. as “detrimental”45 The discrimination to Russian mentality faced by and the politi LGBT introduction community, including recent legislative changes, will be discussed in the next section of the report.

1.5 Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Russia

LGBT individuals was during Peter the Great’s rule of the Russian Empire when, inThe 1716, first he time enacted Russian a ban law on contained sodomy (men provisions having whichpenetrative discriminated sex with men) against in the army.46 In 1832, Nicholas I outlawed sodomy altogether: persons convicted were to be stripped of their rights and relocated to Siberia for between four 47 These Tsarist laws were repealed following the October Revolu- tion in 1917.48 However, this did not mean that the authorities were indifferent towardsand five years.same-sex relationships. Although such relationships were tolerated, it

(“ Der Spiegel, 21Федерации”). September See,2014, “Russia available Analysis at: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/russland-unter-putin-aus of Foreign Office: ‘An authoritarian state in almost every respect’”- Russland-Analyse des Auswärtiges Amtes: ‘Ein fast in jeder Hinsicht autoritärerRuling Staat’”), Russia: Author- itarianism from the Revolution to Putin, Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 220. waertiges-amt-spricht-von-autoritaerem-staat-a-992768.html; Zimmerman, W., 43 These include the “foreign agents” law, Federal Law, 20 July 2012, No. 121-FZ, amending the Law on Non-Commercial Organisations and the Code of Administrative Offences (

Федеральный закон, от 20 июля 2012 года № 121-ФЗ “О внесении ”),изменений and the law в отдельныеon “undesirableзаконодательные organisations”,акты Fed- eralРоссийской Law of 23 Федерации May 2015, вNo. части 129-FZ,регулирования amending theдеятельности Criminal Codeнекоммерческих and other laws ( организаций выполняющих функции иностранного агента Федеральный закон от 23 мая 2015 года № 129-ФЗ “О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные 44 актыTincq, Российской H., “Cyril, the Федерации”). religious arm of the nationalism of Putin” (“Cyrille, le bras religieux du nationalisme de Poutine”), Slate.fr, 8 December 2014, available at: http://www.slate.fr/story/95027/cyrille-patriarche-poutine. 45 See The Principles of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted in 2000 by the Bish- ops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, available at: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/141422. html (“ ”, ). The Principles denounced the attempts to “normaliseОсновы homosexuality”,социальной whichконепции is consideredРусской “sinful”Православной and “perversive”.Церкви приняты Освященным Архиерейским Собором Русской Православной Церкви 46 ”) in Kon, I.S., Faces and Masks of Same-Sex Love, 2003 ( и Military Regulations, 2003). of Tsar Peter I, “On the Sodomy Sin, on Violence and Fornication” (“О содомском грехе, о насилии и блуде Кон И.С. Лики маски 47 Ibid., Kon, I.S. однополой любви 11 48 Ibid. 12 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 pub “a expres as “public defined was fine) relationships”,which sexual a unconventional of imposing sion (by punish to proposed which bill a was ships have beenrejected by theState Duma. In recent years, several legislative initiatives to outlaw same-sex relation in Russia continuedto labelbeinggay asamentaldisorder. disorders.mental Despite many thisfact, psychiatrists andotherprofessionals of Diseases (ICD-10). Yeltsin’s rule. It was27 May notuntil 1993 Article 121 that was repealed under then-President entation, aswell asto solidifyRussian oppositionto NaziGermany. minorities and was used against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexualori may havetoolpolitical beena which playedprejudice uponpublic against sexual propagandabegan to gay depictbeing sign offascism, asa Article 121 andthat not more. victed under it hasbeenreportedArticle 121 but there that were thousands,if acts between women. There is no accurate dataonthenumberof persons con Code Criminalnew of theRSFSR of1960. There was noprohibition onsexual hardpunishment. in prisonas labour of years five to up with men, between intercourse sexual prohibiting 1926, of During Stalin’s rule,Article154-a was added to theCriminalCode of theRSFSR of theirown sex was seenashaving adisorder. was atopiccame under strictcensorship that and aperson attracted to someone 56

received 58votes infavour. A draft law which proposed re-criminalising “homosexualrelations” was rejected in 2004, although it Нормализация гомосексуализма какмедико-социальная проблема Journal atric Kochatyan, G.S.,“Normalisationof Homosexualism asMedicaland SocialProblem”, Хпересмотра”). болезнейипроблем,связанных создоровьем статистическую классификацию Международную на Федерации Российскойздравоохранения учреждений и переходе органов “О 170 № года1997 мая 27 отРоссии Минздрава (Приказ 170 No. 1997, Mayrevision” 27 10th of lems, eration health facilities of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Prob трудовой кодекс РСФСР”). дополнений в Уголовный кодекс РСФСР, Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР и Исправительно- May 1993 (Закон Российской Федерации от 29 Апреля 1993 года № 4901-1 “О внесении изменений и Procedure andtheRSFSR Penitentiary Code” 29April1993,No.4901-1which entered into force on27 Советская властьпротив гомосексуалистов www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/24204207.html Homosexuals”, ( against Power Soviet ‘Blue’. the on “Red V.Tolts, Human Rights Commission report, Gessen, M., центрального Decision oftheAll-Russian Central Executive Committee, 17December1933( Bisexual, Transgender, andQueerCulture 593 с. 1930, Энциклопедия, Советская Sereisky,M., OrderMinistry ofRussia of theHealth Adopting “On by care thehealth organisations oftheRussian Fed Law of theRussian FederationRSFSR “OnAmendingthe Criminal Code, theRSFSR Code oftheCriminal 51 Some historians have noted thatitwas during this time thatSoviet The rights of lesbiansThe rights andgay meninthe Russian Federation: An International GayandLesbian , Vol.4, 2006, available http://npar.ru/journal/2006/4/homosexuality.htmat: ( GreatSoviet Encyclopedia 53

исполнительного In 1999, Russia endorsed the 1990 International Classification International 1990 the endorsed Russia 1999, In 54 This formally removed “homosexuality”from of thelist

International Gay andLesbianHumanRights Commission,1994. комитета от 17 декабря 1933 года). комитета от17декабря1933года). , 1930, p. 593 ( 1930, , p. , available at:http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/russia_S.pdf. ). See also Healey,). Seealso D., ). 50 Article 154 became Article 121 inthe Article 154 became Article ееси МА Гмскулз / Большая // Гомосексуализм М.А. Серейский Владимир Тольц. “Красным” по “голубому”.Тольц.по Владимир – “Красным” 49 56

Oneoftherecent initiatives Russia: AnEncyclopedia Gay, of Lesbian,

10 March 2002, ). 55 Решение

availableat: http:// Independent Psychi 52

Всероссийского Г.С. Кочарян ------lic demonstration of their distorted sexual preferences in public places”.57 justice or complicity? the “homosexual movement always tries to support paedophilia”, without cit- ingThe any explanatory such studies. study58 to the bill states that “scientific” studies confirm that

In 2006, so-called “propaganda of homosexuality” was outlawed in some regions. This was followed by a ban at the federal level in 2013. The ban on “propaganda of homosexuality” has been characterised as the effective re-criminalisation of same-sex relationships. The adoption of these laws has contributed to a recent introduction rise in stigmatisation of LGBT people in Russia. The actions of LGBT activists are routinely prohibited on the basis of these laws, and many advocacy organisations have had to restrict their activities, fearing prosecution.59

Studies by two leading LGBT advocacy groups in Russia, the Russian LGBT Net- work and Coming Out, provide detailed information on the systematic discrimination faced by the LGBT community in Russia, including hate crimes and vio- crimes, the prosecution of LGBT activists and restrictions on their freedom of speech,lence, hate association speech by and state ability officials, to hold the public failure assemblies. of the police60 to investigate hate

In August and September 2015, the Russian LGBT Network carried out a survey relating to discrimination and violence, including a set of questions focused on interaction with law enforcement agencies. The survey was completed by 1,346 respondents and covered the experiences of respondents in the previous year. Less than 6% of the respondents (76 people out of 1,346) in the period from October 2014 to August 2015 made a complaint to law enforcement authorities when faced with discrimination and violence. Seventeen percent of respondents reported that they had experienced physical violence, with 5% reporting that they had experienced sexual violence. Thirty-two percent of the respondents reported discrimination in the workplace and workplace harassment. Theft and destruction of property was reported by 12% of the respondents. Nine percent of respondents stated that they faced restricted access to goods and services and 8% that they experienced restricted access to health care. A violation of parental rights was alleged to have occurred in 3% of cases. Twenty-one percent of respondents stated their personal data had been used illegally. Respondents reported varying treatment by the police when they sought to make a complaint. Investigations were said to have been carried out

57 Draft Law “On Amending the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation” 29 October

2015, No. 916716-6 (Законопроект от 29 октября 2015 года №. 916716-6 “О внесении изменений в 58 КодексIbid., Explanatory Российской Note. Федерации об административных правонарушениях”). 59 See below, Part 2.5.4. 60 See, for example, Coming Out, Report on Monitoring Cases of Discrimination and Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in St. Petersburg in 2014, 2014, p. 25, available at: http://comingoutspb. com/publikatsii/prava-cheloveka/

and Russian LGBT Network, Hate crimes(Доклад motivated по мониторингу by victim’s genderслучаев identity дискриминации or sexual orientation и насилия com по- 13 mittedпризнакам in Russian сексуальной Federation ориентации in 2014, 2014, и гендерной available at: идентичности http://www.lgbtnet.org/en/reptseng. в Санкт-Петербурге за 2014 год); 14 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 the Russian LGBT Network to submittheNetwork’s report onviolenceand invited office her although Russia, in rights LGBT on commented yet not has for herlackofhumanrights experience. The newly appointed Ombudsperson,Tatyana Moskalkova, hasfaced criticism LGBT teenagers. supported theclosure oftheChildren 404Project,which was aimed athelping which couldbeseenashostileto therights ofLGBT persons.For example, she increasing thebirth rate”. “developed system oftraditional values andademographic policyaimedat as an“ambiguous”issuewhich marriage “discrimination that stated simply based onsexual orientationisprohibited inRussia”. instead has and office, her with lodged discrimination against LGBT personsinRussia asnocomplaintshave been contrary, onanumber ofoccasions,shehasstated thatsheisunaware ofany not did 2016, March publicly until express supportfor therights ofLGBT individuals inRussia. Onthe office in was and 2014 in Ombudsperson rights tance oftheactivists’ work. human rights, although thesupportwas limited to acknowledging theimpor the concernsofLGBT activists inrelation to violationsofLGBT individuals’ eral level. Former Russian OmbudsmanVladimir Lukinpublicly supported persons or oftheneedto adoptmeasures to combathate crimesatthefed LGBT against discrimination of acknowledgement official no been has There complainant’s policestatement was taken. reported beingscoffed insulted or laughed orharassed. at, Inonly 12cases,the In 26cases,thecomplaintwas accepted by thepolice,butcomplainant knownot plainant did anything of theinvestigation.further course the about agencies). In19cases,thepolicemadearecord butthecom ofthecomplaint, overin only eight cases(just 10%ofthe76complaintsto law enforcement

man-rights-ombudsman-is-former-police-general.html?_r=0. Times, Nechepurenko,I., “Russia’s Rights NewHuman FormerOmbudsman Is PoliceGeneral”, помощи ЛГБТ-подросткам“Дети-404” //Знак “ М. of support for project LGBT-teenagers”,the of down shut the with situation the on comments “Pamfilova M., Plyusnina, See above, note 63. https://rg.ru/2014/10/20/pamfilova-dz.html. eration(“ FedRussian the in Rights Human for Commissioner Pamfilova,High Ella with breakfast” “Business See моченный High Commissioner for Human Rights intheRussian Federation, ЛГБТ-активистовправ rights”, 18 March 2011 Russian LGBTNetwork research databasemay bemadeavailable by theEqual Rights Trust onrequest. Russian LGBT Network, Там 22 April 2016,available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/world/europe/russias-new-hu 64

все Деловой andinher2014report referred to the rights ofLGBT individuals

по

на

правам

грани Znak 66

завтрак

, 15April2015, availablehttps://www.znak.com/2015-04-15/at: (

человека вРоссийскойФедерации.Доклад

( , “ , оа. Памфилова фола”. Results ofQuantitative Research , Российская ЛГБТ-Сеть. Россиский омбудсман впервые выступил в защиту защиту в выступил ЛГБТ-Сеть.омбудсманвпервые Российская Россиский 18 марта 2011года Russian Ombudsman made his first appearance in defense of LGBT-activistsof defense in appearance first his made Ombudsman Russian ” с ” 65 Эллой Furthermore, Ms Pamfilova took a number of steps 62 Ella Pamfilova, who became the federal human federal the became Pamfilova,who Ella

Памфиловой

faces “natural resistance” incountries witha

прокомментировала ) . , 15 ), 67 Апреля Rossiyskaya Gazeta 61 Inherrole asOmbudsperson, she , December 2015. Access to thisRussian language 2015года).

ситуацию Report 2014 63

за Shecriticisedsame-sex 2014 , 20 October, 2014, availableat: год с блокировкой , 2015, p. 23 ( , 2015,С.23). The New YorkNew The Плюснина

Уполно- проекта - - - - - discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.68 As a mem- justice or complicity? ber of the State Duma, she criticised the Strasbourg judgment in Alekseyev v Russia,69 stating that it was contrary to “the norms of morality and ethics (…) Russian cultural and religious traditions”.70 The situation at the regional level also offers little comfort. Among regional Ombudspersons, only the St. Peters- burg Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation occurs and has issued recommendations to combat homophobic violence.71 introduction - cial documents refer to LGBT individuals in a neutral or unbiased way. The 2012Apart Statefrom medicalStudy on standards the Status in theof Youth, sphere which of HIV took prevention, place in very one few of Rusoffi- sia’s 22 republics, the Republic of Udmurtia, concluded that only 33.6% of the respondents to social studies in this region expressed a tolerant attitude towards “sexual minorities”.72

1.6 Overview of the Russian Judicial System

There are four types of court proceedings73 In addition identified to the in Lawthe Law on the“On Judicial the Judicial Sys- tem,System there of the are Russian also separate Federation” procedural (Law ruleson the for Judicial commercial System): courts, constitutional; and sepa- ratecivil; rules administrative; for proceedings and criminal. in relation to administrative offences.74 Proceedings relating to administrative offences must be distinguished from administrative various state bodies (for example, challenging denial of permission to hold a publicproceedings; assembly), the latter and also involves special cases proceedings challenging involving administrative state powers decisions (for of example, involuntary placement in a medical facility). As of 15 September 2015,

68 Letter of Ms. O. Noyanova, Head of the International Relations Department, High Commissioner for Hu- man Rights in the Russian Federation, 23 May 2016, No. 14794-52 (

14794-52). Письмо О. Нояновой, начальника отдела международных отношений аппарата Уполномоченного по правам человека в Российской 69 ФедерацииAlekseyev v Russia от 23, маяApplication 2016 года No. № 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, 21 October 2010. 70 Regions.ru, “Moscow should not cave in to Strasbourg (Opinions of MPs)”, 10 November 2010, available at: http://regions.ru/news/2323218/ ( ( )). Москва не должна прогибаться перед Страсбургом мнения 71 парламентариевSee above, note 63. 72 Decision of the Government of the Republic of Udmurtia of 25 June 2012, No. 523-r, on the State Re-

port of the Status of Youth in the Republic of Udmurtia in 2011 (Распоряжение Правительства УР от 25.06.2012 N 523-р “О государственном докладе о положении молодежи в Удмуртской Республике 73 вFederal 2011 году”). Constitutional Law, “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation”, 31 December 1996, No.

1-FKZ, Article 1(3) (Федеральный конституционный закон от 31 декабря 1996 года № 1-ФКЗ “О 74 судебнойAdministrative системе offences Российской cover a Федерации”,broad range ofпункт violations 3 статьи and, 1). unlike crimes, apply both to natural and legal persons. Although some administrative sanctions are quite harsh and may include up to 15 days of 15 Criminal Code are regarded as crimes and lead to a criminal record. custody, they are distinguished from criminal offences on a formal basis – only those offences listed in the 16 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 77 76 75 as well asadministrative disputes outside ofeconomicactivities. Thus,the Courts ofgeneral jurisdictiondealwiththemajorityofcivil andcriminalcases, 1.6.1 The system isillustrated inthechartonpage17. The Russian judicialsystem includes: bodies andtheirbudgetistheresponsibility ofregional authorities. role of lower courts for district courts, they are appointed by regional legislative because although their jurisdiction is defined by federal laws and they act in the Justices of the peaceare formally considered part of the regional judicialsystem a federalcourts isdone at level andthecourtsfollowfederal procedural rules. Republicof Karelia federalis a these of judgesin The appointment court. appeal the formallyof federalSupremeforexample,Court be consideredthe tocourts; arecourts orregionaloblast called courts). higher court (inrepublics these are called supreme courts, inother regions these each district bywithin theregionalauthorities. each districthas itsownand district court. of the85regions recognised by Russia isdivided into administrative districts The Russian judicial system follows the federalstructure of the State. Administrative Proceedings. administrative proceedings are governed by separatethe Code legislation,on 79 78

Ibid., Ibid № 1-ФКЗ“О ary 2011, No. 1-FKZ, Article 32 ( FederalLaw,Constitutional Courts of General “On Jurisdiction in theRussian Federation”, 7Febru See above, note 73,Article4(3). Федерации”). года № 22-ФЗ “О введении в действие Кодекса административного судопроизводства Российской 2015 марта 8 от закона Федерального 1 (Статья 1 Article 22-FZ, No. 2015, Federation”March sian 8 Federal Lawthe Procedure “On of Enforcement of The Code for Administrative Proceedings of the Rus iv. iii. ii. i. Courts ofGeneral Jurisdiction ., Article3(2). Article24. constitutional courts oftheregionsconstitutional (knownas statutory courts insome the ConstitutionalCourtofRussian Federation; and state arbitration courts (also knownas commercial courts). This includes district courts,courts ofthepeace, courts ofgeneraljurisdiction(justices regions). ation, which hasaspecialchamberdedicated to commercial cases; the highest arbitrationis theSupremecourt CourtoftheRussian Feder Supreme Arbitration However,Court. followingits dissolutionin2014, Before thejudicialreform of 2014, the highest arbitration courtwas the state arbitrationcourts oftheregions, courts, andcircuit appeal courts. eral jurisdictionistheSupreme CourtoftheRussian Federation; of the constituententitiesof theFederation). The highest courtwithgen судах

общей

юрисдикции вРоссийскойФедерации”). 75 Федеральный

конституционный 77 79 Justices of the peaceareJustices of appointed Both district and higherdistrict and Both courtsare 78 In every In region there isalsoone

ао о 7 февраля 7 от закон 01 года 2011 76 Each - - - -

justice or complicity? Constitutional Court of Presidium of the Supreme Court the Russian Federation

Constitutional and statutory Supreme Court of the Russian Federation courts of the regions

Courts of the constitutent entities introduction (supreme courts of republics, oblast Cicuit state courts, regional courts, 1st instance arbitration courts courts and appellate courts)

District Courts, including garrison courts (1st instance courts and Appellate state appellate courts for the justices of arbitration courts the peace)

State arbitration Justices of the peace courts of the regions (1st instance courts) (1st instance) overwhelming majority of cases referred to in this report are those decided by courts of general jurisdiction, in particular by district courts. The term “general jurisdiction” may be misleading as it covers all criminal cases, but not all civil or administrative cases (commercial disputes or administrative cases involving commercial entities fall under the jurisdiction of the state arbitration courts).80 Moreover, military courts are also considered part of the courts of general jurisdiction.81

From a historical perspective the term “general jurisdiction” was introduced to distinguish commercial and constitutional proceedings from all other (general) proceedings.82 Until 2014, when the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation was dissolved and merged with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, courts of general jurisdiction and state arbitration courts acted independently with each having developed its own body of case law.

Within the system of the courts of general jurisdiction, either district courts or limited jurisdiction.83 They hear certain civil cases, minor criminal cases and the majorityjustices of of thecases peace involving act as administrative courts of first offences.instance. District Justices courts of the act peace as courts have of first instance in the majority of civil and criminal cases and as appellate courts 80

Code of State Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation, 24 July 2002, No. 95-FZ Article 1 (Арбитраж- 81 ныйSee above, процессуальный note 77, Article кодекс 1(2). Российской Федерации от 24 июля 2002 года № 95-ФЗ). 82 See above, note 27, Article 126. 17 83 There are approximately 7,500 justices of the peace across Russia. 18 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 the Russian Federation. fromappeals maychambers these Supremethe with lodged be then ofCourt sation (known as“presidium”), which are courts ofthird instance.Cassation In addition,constituentcourtshave specialchambersactingascourtsofcas Constitutional Court oftheRussian Federation hasexclusive jurisdiction. challenged ontheground thatitiscontrary to theFederal Constitution, the assemblies, contradicts federal legislation. alleged thatregional legislation,includinglaws passedby regional legislative involving jurytrials). and foreigncases (includingall some criminal and in adoption cases, for example incasesofforced dissolution ofnon-governmental organisations cases, civil some in courts instance first as act also may They cases. criminal region) As noted above, courtsoftheconstituententities(thehigher courts ofeach 1.6.2 ordered by adistrictjudge. a suspension of activities ofalegalentity, whichonlycan punishment that isa be iffound,district judge becausethelatter may aspect, resultin theimposition of with theuseofinternet or other media, itmay fallunder the jurisdiction ofa diction of a justiceof the peace. (propaganda of non-traditionalrelationships among minors) is within thejuris administrative case under Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences Forexample,an instance. first at case the hear will judge district a or peace the ing onthenature of a civil, administrative or criminal case, either a justiceof first as serve instance courtsinrelationto some administrativecourts offences. District peace. the of justices of decisions to regard with 91

(Гражданский процессуальный(Гражданский кодекс Российской от Федерации 14ноября2002года № 138-ФЗ). Civil Procedure Code oftheRussian Federation, 14November 2002,No.138-FZ, Article 377(1)(3) “О No. 1-FKZ, Article 3 ( FederalLaw,Constitutional Court oftheRussian the Constitutional “On Federation”, 21July 1994, Ibid., процессуальный кодекс Российской от Федерации 18декабря2001года статья32). №174-ФЗ, пункт5статьи20); № 195-ФЗ, года 2001 декабря 30 от правонарушениях, административных об Федерации (КодексРоссийской Code ofAdministrative Proceedings oftheRussian Federation, 30December 2001,No.195-FZ, Article 20(5) Russian Federation” isdesignedto denote courtswithinthesingle federal system ofcourts. city courtsinMoscow, Petersburg St. andSevastopol. The term “courts of the constituententitiesof the These arecourts, regional oblast courts and supreme courts in therepublics,and provincial courts or Ibid. административных Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences, Article 23.1(3) ( There are approximately 2,400districtcourtsacross Russia, including119militarygarrison courts. Criminal Procedure Code of the RussianProcedure(Уголовно-the Criminal Federation,32 of Article Code 174-FZ, No. 2001, December 18 Конституционном Courts oftheConstituent Entities(Regions) Code ofAdministrative Proceedings oftheRussian Federation, Article 20(2). 87 are federal appellate forcourts civilin decisions of majority the and

правонарушениях

Суде РоссийскойФедерации”). Федеральный 88 Thesecourts have jurisdictionto hearcaseswhere itis 91

86 85

конституционный However, if a case involves alleged propaganda , пункт 3 статьи 89 However, ifregional legislationis 23.1).

ао о 2 июля 21 от закон Кодекс Российской Федерации об 84 Therefore, depend 94 оа 1-ФКЗ № года 1994 90 - - -

1.6.3 Commercial Courts justice or complicity?

Commercial courts deal with disputes between commercial entities, including private entrepreneurs, as well as with cases involving administrative sanctions that are being imposed on commercial legal entities. Commercial courts also hear cases challenging administrative decisions in the economic sphere.92 For example, both a limited liability company and a non-commercial legal entity would challenge the decision of a tax agency in a commercial court. introduction 1.6.4 Regional Constitutional Courts

Sixteen of the 85 regions have their own regional constitutional courts (known as statutory courts in some regions).93 Each constitutional (statutory) court is a separate judicial body and does not act as an appeal court for any other court.94 The jurisdiction of these courts is limited to cases of an alleged contradiction between a regional law and a regional constitution (in republics) or a regional statute (in other regions). In 2012, a Russian activist utilised this avenue to challenge St. Petersburg’s ban on “propaganda of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and transsexuality among minors”.95 The need for these courts has been questioned as they handle so few cases due to their limited jurisdiction.96

1.6.5 Precedent

Russia is a civil law country and judicial decisions are not formally recognised as binding precedents, at least in the general jurisdiction.97 of the Russian Supreme Court are considered by lower courts to provide guiding (and de facto binding) interpretation of existing law.98 In However, addition, legal decisions findings of the Plenary Sessions of the Russian Supreme Court explain how courts should

92 See above, note 80, Article 29(1). 93 These courts are called constitutional courts in the republics (for example, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Karelia) and statutory courts in other constituent entities (for example, the Statutory Court of St. Petersburg). The 16 regions are St. Petersburg, Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Kaliningrad Oblast, the Re- publics of Adygeya, Bashkiria, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Ingushetia, Karelia, Komi, Marii-El, Yakutia, North Ossetia, Tatarstan, Tyva, and Chechnya. 94 This means that a decision of a regional statutory or constitutional or statutory court cannot be appealed. 95 from sitting on the bench and the Court therefore lacked necessary quorum. In 2014, a new judge was ap- pointedThe case and was the suspended proceedings by thewere St. resumed, Petersburg however, Statutory the regionalCourt as lawone was of the repealed judges by disqualified the St. Petersburg himself City Legislative Assembly following the introduction of the federal ban on propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and the case was therefore discontinued on procedural grounds. See Decision of the St. Petersburg Statutory Court, 16 October 2014, No. 001/14-5

(Определение Санкт-Петербургского 96 уставногоSobol, L., “Constitutional суда от 16 Октября (statutory) 2014 годаcourts по ofделу the № constituent 001/14-5). entities of the Russian Federation: no one knows about them, but they exist!” Open Russia, 15 April 2015 ( ( ) !), available at: https://openrussia.org/post/ view/4243. The Statutory Court of the Chelyabinsk Oblast was dissolvedКонституционные for this reason in 2014.уставные суды субъектов РФ. Никто о них не знает, а они есть 97 See Musin, V.A., Kropachev N.M., Russian Law in Brief: Digest for Investors, St. Petersburg University Press, 2014, p. 18. 19 98 Ibid. 20 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 the independenceofRussian judiciary. RapporteurSpecial ontheindependence of judgesandlawyers as undermining tive branch of judges hasbeenrightly intheappointment criticised by theUN of transparencyamong judges.The lack andthedominanceofadministra overjudges and This includes thepower justicesofthepeace. to distribute cases posal of the Supreme have Court, vast administrative powers over ordinary Presidents of courts,who are appointed by thePresident ofRussiathe pro at house of the Federal Parliament) but must first be proposed by the President. Supreme CourtofRussia are appointed by theCouncilofFederation(upper federalment of all judges. appoint the on decision final the has Russia of President The government. of The Russian judicialsystem is highly dependent on theadministrative branch 1.6.6 initiated by private personsthrough asystem ofindividual petitions. not yet entered into force. validitytutional of laws andcases concerning international treaties which have and eachoftheregionallegislatures. requestthe the President,ofthe Federal Parliament, the Federal Government Court is tutional vested with thepower to interpret theFederal Constitutionat eredsources as oflaw. Decisions of theRussianCourt are Constitutional bindingandmay beconsid datory guidanceonhow to apply laws inspecificspheres. apply lawand are thereforeunique way a ofproviding lowerman courtswith 106

ela Knaul Human Rights Council, Ibid., в РоссийскойФедерации”,статья 3132-1, Article6( Law oftheRussian Federation “OntheStatusofJudgesinRussian Federation”, 26June1992,No. Российской Федерации ksrf.ru/ru/Petition/Pages/Statistic.aspx( Court of Constitutional the Russian Federation. Ibid Ibid See above, note 90,Article6. международных судами Пленума tional Law and International Treaties of the Russian Federation”, 10 October 2003, No. 5 (Постановление byApplication Courts ofGeneralJurisdiction ofGenerally Recognised Principles andNorms of Interna See, for example,Decision Session of theSupremeof thePlenary Courtof theRussian Federation,the “On Appointment . ., Article3. Article6and6.1;seeabove, note 90,Article2.

общей , 30April2014.UN Doc.A/HRC/26/32/Add.1, Paras 17–20,24–26.

Верховного

юрисдикции

договоров РоссийскойФедерации”). Закон Российской Федерации от 26 июня

Report ofthe Special Rapporteuron the independence ofjudges andlawyers, Gabri Суда Российской Федерации от 10 октября 10 от Федерации Российской Суда ). 100 In addition toIn hearingindividualConsti the petitions, 102 104

общепризнанных Mostcases decided by theConstitutionalCourt are Judges of the RussianCourt Constitutional and the 6). Обзор 101

Overview ofthe applications Overview поступающих It decides It cases concerningtheconsti

принципов 106 1992 года № 3132-1 “О

и обращений норм 2003 года № 5 “О “О 5 № года 2003 99

международного

в , availableat: http://www. Конституционный 103 статусе применении

права

судей

Суд 105 и ------

1.7 Legal Framework Related to Discrimination justice or complicity?

1.7.1 Major United Nations Treaties Related to Equality

Russia has a good record of ratifying the major UN human rights treaties relating to equality. It has ratified seven of the nine core UN human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International introduction Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International theConvention Convention on onthe the Elimination Elimination of ofAll All Forms Forms of of Racial Discrimination Discrimination against (ICERD); Women -

(CEDAW); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrad Russiaing Treatment has allowed or Punishment for individual (CAT); complaints the Convention to be made on tothe some Rights of theof the relevant Child (CRC); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). thetreaty CEDAW. bodies, having ratified the first Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, made a declaration under Article 14 of the ICERD and ratified the Optional Protocol to

Instrument Signed Ratified / Acceded (a)

International Covenant on Civil and Political 18 March 1968 16 October 1973 Rights (1966)

Optional Protocol to the International Cov- 01 October 1991 (a) enant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) Second Optional Protocol to the Inter- – national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming to the abolition of the death penalty (1989) – – International Covenant on Economic, Social 18 March 1968 16 October 1973 and Cultural Rights (1966) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2008) – – International Convention on the Elimination 07 March 1966 04 February 1969 of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) Declaration under Article 14 of the Inter- national Convention on the Elimination of 01 October 1991 All Forms of Racial Discrimination (allowing individual complaints) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 17 July 1980 23 January 1981 Discrimination against Women (1979) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 08 May 2001 28 July 2004 against Women (1999) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish- 10 December 1985 03 March 1987 ment (1984) 21 22 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 107 sal Periodic Review for Russia to: recommendationa ple, was madeinthesecond cycleof reporting for theUniver discriminationagainstthat the LGBT Forplace. taking is not community exam non-discrimination issues relatingto LGBT individuals, through itsinsistence examples of Russia’s failure to engage withrecommendations and on equality age withintwo to three months of the duedate. reporting obligations without substantial delays; reports are submitted on aver the mostrecentIn treaty body reporting cycles, Russiaits hascompliedwith 108 (2006) of AllPersons from Enforced Disappearances International Convention for theProtection Disabilities (2006) Convention ontheRights ofPersons with bers ofTheirFamilies (1990) the Rights ofAllMigrant Workers andMem International Convention ontheProtection of Convention ontheRights oftheChild(1989) Instrument

Rights ofPersons with Disabilities(2006) Optional Protocol to theConvention onthe cation procedure) the Rights oftheChild(2011)(communi Optional Protocol IIIto the Convention on pornography) of children, childprostitution andchild on theRights oftheChild(2000)(sale Optional Protocol IIto theConvention ment ofchildren inarmedconflict) the Rights oftheChild(2000)(involve Optional Protocol Ito theConvention on (2002) or Degrading Treatment orPunishment against Torture andOtherCruel,Inhuman Optional Protocol to theConvention A/HRC/24/14/Add.1, 8July 2013,Recommendations 140.86-140.91. RightsHuman Council, Code=RUS&Lang=EN. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/countries.aspx?Country at: available ation”, FederRussianfor status “Reporting Rights, Human for Commissioner High the of Office Nations United ing their rightsto freedom ofexpression and peaceful assembly. the arbitrary useofexisting regulations against LGBT rights,includ similar laws atthe federal level, as well astake measures to prevent crimination basedonsexual orientation, andrefrain from adopting Rescind regional laws andregulations which favour andtolerate dis Reporttheof Working Group the on Universal PeriodicReview: Russian Federation - - - 24 September 2008 26 September 2012 15 February 2001 26 January1990 Signed 107 – – – – – However, there are increasing Ratified / Acceded (a) 24 September 2013 24 September 2008 25 September 2012 16 August 1990 108 – – – – – ------

Rejecting this and a number of similarly phrased recommendations, Russia replied justice or complicity? that:

The law does not discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons (…) The law contains no measures what- soever aimed at prohibiting or officially censuring homosexuality, or any indications of a discriminatory nature. Nor does it allow for excessive action by the authorities. It cannot, therefore, be said that 109 it places undue restrictions on the freedoms of speech or assembly. introduction

A similar stance was taken in response to the list of issues adopted in the most recent reporting cycle for the ICCPR, where Russia was asked to:

Comment on reports that the laws adopted at regional and federal level banning “promotion of non-traditional sexual relations between minors” are systematically used to restrict the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of LGBT individuals.110

Russia noted in its reply that:

Overall, the Russian authorities are convinced that the legislation currently in force is not being used to arbitrarily restrict the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of LGBT individuals. Rus- sian laws and their application are fully consistent with the country’s obligations under the Covenant.111

This is despite the laws in question themselves being clearly discriminatory.112 Additionally, despite recommendations to take steps to prevent the harassment and persecution of lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders,113 Russia has begun blacklisting “undesirable” foreign organisations, adversely impact- equality and non-discrimination.114 ing the ability of these organisations to undertake advocacy work in the field of

109 Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Russian Federation, Addendum: Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, Un Doc. A/HRC/24/14/Add.1, 2 September 2013, Recommendations 140.86- 140.91. 110 Human Rights Committee, List of issues in relation to the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/Q/7, 19 August 2014, Para 25(b). 111 Human Rights Committee, List of issues in relation to the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, Addendum: Replies of the Russian Federation to the list of issues, Un Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/Q/7/Add.1, 18 December 2014, Para 157. 112 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Feder- ation, UN Doc CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, 28 April 2015, Para 10(d). These laws are discussed in detail in Part 2.3.1 of this report. 113 Ibid. Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Committee at its forty ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), UN Doc, Para CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, 18; and Human Rights11 December Committee, 2012, Para 12. 114 23 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/russia-begins-blacklisting-undesirable-organizations. Amnesty International, “Russia begins blacklisting ‘undesirable’ organizations”, 28 July 2015, available at: 24 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 1.7.3 Regional HumanRights Treaties Statute andacceptthejurisdictionofInternational CriminalCourt. reluctantto to submit internationallegal scrutiny by failingto ratify theRome persons and reduction ofstatelessness. Furthermore, Russia hasshownitself However,exceptions notable are thetwo conventionsof stateless onthestatus bearing ontheenjoymentof therights of all toand non-discrimination. equality Russia has a good record of ratification of other international treaties that have a 1.7.2 on 28February 1996.Itiscurrently partyto a total of60international agreements The Russian Federation becamethe39thmember state ofthe Council ofEurope tion (1989)(ILO Convention No.169) Indigenous andTribal Peoples Conven tion (1999)(ILO Convention No.182) Worst Forms ofChildLabourConven Convention No.111) Occupation) Convention (1958)(ILO Discrimination (Employment and (1951) (ILO Convention No.100) Equal Remuneration Convention (ILO Convention No.29) Forced LabourConvention (1930) nation inEducation (1960) UNESCO Convention against Discrimi Criminal Court(2002) Rome Statute ontheInternational cially Women andChildren (2000) Punish Trafficking inPersons, Espe Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Organized Crime(2000) UN Convention against Transnational to Slavery (1956) and InstitutionsPractices Similar Abolition ofSlavery, theSlave Trade, Supplementary Convention onthe lessness (1961) Convention ontheReduction ofState Stateless Persons (1954) Convention Relating to theStatusof Refugees (1951) Convention Relating to theStatusof Instrument Other Treaties Related to Equality - - - - - 13 September 2000 12 December2000 12 December2000 7 September 1956 Signed – – – – – – – – – Ratified /Acceded (a) 2 February 1993(a) 01 August 1962 25 March 2003 30 April1956 12 April1957 23 June1956 04 May 1961 26 May 2004 26 May 2004 – – – – under the Council of Europe, including several key human rights instruments.115 justice or complicity? Most importantly, Russia is party to the European Convention on Human Rights

(ECHR), having signed the Convention on 28 February 1996 and ratified it on 5- May 1998. Russia has signed and ratified both amending protocols (No. 11 and 14) to the ECHR. It has ratified supplementary Protocols 1, 4 and 7, but has not rati- tocolfied the 12, protocols which provides in relation a free-standing to the abolition right of to the non-discrimination, death penalty (Protocol on 4 Novem 6 was- bersigned, 2000 whereas but has Protocol yet to ratify 13 was it. Consequently,neither signed Protocol nor ratified). 12 is Russianot yet signed in force Pro in introduction Russia.116 As acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) became compulsory for members of the ECHR in 1998 (when Russia rat- 117

Otherified), regionalRussia is humansubject rights to the instrumentsCourt’s jurisdiction Russia isby party virtue to of include that membership. the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment - work Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (signed: 28 February or Punishment (signed: 28 February 1996, ratified: 5 May 1998), the Frame - vention1996; ratified: on the 21 Protection August 1998), of Children the European against Social Sexual Charter Exploitation (revised) and (signed: Sexual 14 September 2000, ratified: 16 October 2009), and the 118Council of Europe Con

1.7.4Abuse Status (signed: of 1 International October 2012, Obligations ratified: 9 August in Domestic 2013). Law

Throughout the Soviet era, international human rights law was not incorporated into domestic law.119 This changed in 1993 with the adoption of the Fed- eral Constitution. Article 15(4) of the Federal Constitution states that commonly recognised principles and norms of international law and international 120 Article 15(4) - ationtreaties establishes ratified by rules Russia different form part from of thethose Russian envisaged legal system.by law, the rules of the internationalfurther provides treaty that take if an precedence. international121 It treaty should ratified be noted by that, the Russianwhile incorpo Feder- rating both international treaties and norms, Article 15(4) only refers to the supremacy of treaties and does not provide for the supremacy of commonly recognised principles of international law. Article 17 states that the “rights

115 See above, note 5. 116 en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/177/signatures. Council of Europe, “Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 177”, available at: http://www.coe.int/ 117 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 32. 118 en/web/conventions/search-on-states/-/conventions/chartStats/RUS. Council of Europe, “Statistics on signatures and ratifications: Russia”, available at: http://www.coe.int/ 119 Although Article 29 of the 1977 Constitution stated that relations between the USSR and other states - ciples and rules of international law, and from international treaties signed by the USSR”, this was not interpretedshould be based as incorporating on the “fulfilment international in good faithlaw into of obligations domestic law. arising See, from Danilenko, the generally G.M., “The recognised New Russian prin Constitution and International Law” American Journal of International Law, 88, 1994, p. 458. 120 Federal Constitution, Article 15(4). 25 121 Ibid. 26 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 124 123 122 con the and states of practice subsequent the that noting specificallyTreaties, followset outinArticles31 that to 33 of the ViennaConvention ontheLaw of The Courtfurthernotedthe approach that to interpretationof treaties should In 2003,theSupreme CourtofRussia explained that: non-self-executing treaties, by providing that: Treaties of 1995 respectIn ofinternational treaties, Article5(3) of theLawon International principles andnormsofinternational law”. erence notonly to humanrights treaties butalsoto the“generally recognised Constitutional the with Court having previously found localregulations to beunconstitutionalby courts, ref Russian the of approach the in support find human rights alsotakes precedence over domesticlaw. Suchareading may this may beread asrequiring thatcustomary international law inrelation to “commonly recognised principles andnorms ofinternational law”. Arguably, and freedoms ofmanandcitizen” shallberecognised inaccordance withthe

международных судами Пленума (Постановление 3 Para 5, No. Federation”,2003, RussianOctober the 10 of Treaties International and by Courts ofGeneralJurisdiction of Generally Recognised Principles and Norms of InternationalLaw Decision of thePlenarySession of theSupreme Court oftheRussian Federation,the Application “On Федерации”, статья ( FederalLaw international “On treaties of theRussian Federation”,15 July 1995, No. 101-FZ, 5(3) Article 2015 года9 февраля поделу №А56-48129/2014). отсуда(Решениеобласти Арбитражного Ленинградской48129/2014 и города Санкт-Петербурга of the State Commercial Petersburg Court of the St. andtheLeningrad 9 Februar Oblast, of commercialinternationalcourts, customary ruleshave oftenSee, forapplied. been example, States: Theory and Practice”, Суда 4 April 1996, No. 9-P Judgment of the ConstitutionalCourt, Федеральный ment ofthe Russian Federation cannot beapplied directly. one ofthe signsthat the provisions of such aninternational agree the participatingstates to amendtheir nationallegislation,this is directeffect in the Russian Federationan agreement (…) if obliges not require the adoptionofnationalactsfor theirapplication have published international treaties of the Russian Federation that do tional Treaties of the Russian Federation”, the provisions of officially In accordance with Part 3ofArticle 5ofFederal Law “On Interna shall beadopted. tional treaties ofthe Russian Federation, the relevant legal acts ation directly. Inorder to effectuate other provisions ofinterna domesticfor acts application,operateshall the in Russian Feder the Russian Federation, whichrequire donot the promulgation of of treaties international published officially of provisions [T]he РФ от 4 апреля 4 от РФ

общей

Верховного

закон от 15 июля 15 от закон юрисдикции

123 договоров Российской Федерации”,п.3). 5(3)). distinguishes betweenof self-executing theapplication and 1996 года № 9-П). № года 1996

Суда Российской Федерации от 10 октября 10 от Федерации Российской Суда EuropeanInternational Journalof

общепризнанных 1995 года № 101-ФЗ “О “О 101-ФЗ № года 1995 Danilenko,of International“Implementation G.M., Law in CIS

принципов 122

международных , Law, 10,1994, the systemp. 64.Within и Псаолне Конституционного (Постановление норм 2003 года № 5 “О “О 5 № года 2003

международного

договорах Российской договорах 124 y 2015, No. А56- No. 2015, y применении - - - -

Judgment права и - - text of the treaty should be taken into account in interpretation.125 The Court justice or complicity? later noted that courts should also make reference to the “the acts and decisions of international organisations, including the United Nations and its specialised also principles and norms of international law.126 In relation to principles and normsagencies” of international when faced withlaw, the difficulties Court noted interpreting that these international “should be understood treaties and as the basic imperative norms of international law, accepted and recognised by the international community of states as a whole, deviation from which is inadmissi- ble.” The Court continued on to state that “the contents of the said principles and introduction norms of international law may be construed, in particular, in the documents of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.”127

The Constitutional Court has held that Russia is under an obligation to implement in good faith the views of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in relation to individual complaints brought against the Russian Federation.128 However, is binding on Russia. Despite this clear statement of the binding nature of HRC jurisprudencethe Court did not in specificallyrelation to Russia,determine it is whether notable thethat general in its decisions case law of regarding the HRC the laws banning the “propaganda of homosexuality”, the Constitutional Court did not refer to the views of the HRC in Fedotova v Russia,129 which had unequiv- ocally criticised such legislation as discriminatory.130

Similarly, although there is clear jurisprudence from the Supreme Court that the case law of the ECtHR must be applied by courts, the approach of the courts appears to increasingly be moving away from the implementation and application of ECtHR jurisprudence. In 2013, the Supreme Court stated that, in accord- the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ance with Article 46(1) of the ECHR and Article 1311 of the Law “On Ratification of in respect of Russia must be applied by the courts. In addition, the Supreme Courtand the stated Protocols that courtsthereto” must (Law take on Ratification),into consideration final decisions judgments of theof the ECtHR ECtHR in respect of other states “if the circumstances of the case under examination are

125 Ibid., Para 10. 126 Ibid., Para 16. 127 Ibid., Para 2. 128 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 28 June 2012, No. 1248-O ( 2012 № 1248-О - ing in regard to the opinions of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Decision ofОпределение the Constitu- tionalКонституционного Court of the RussianСуда РоссийскойFederation, 9 Федерации June 2015, No. от 281276-O июня ( ). See also a similar find

Определение Конституционного Суда 129 РоссийскойFedotova v Russia, Федерации Communication от 9 июня No. 2015 1932/2010, № 1276-О). CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010, 19 November 2012. 130 See, for example, Decision of the Russian Constitutional Court, 19 January 2010, No. 151-O-O ( . In its most recent Concluding Observations, the Human Rights Committee noted its concern in relation to Опреде-Russia’s failureление Конституционногоto implement its viewsСуда despite Российской the decision Федерации of the Constitutional от 19 января Court 2010 of № 28 151-О-О) June 2012. See, Hu- man Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, UN Doc CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, 28 April 2015, Para 5. 131 27 Freedoms and the Protocols thereto”, 30 March 1998, No. 54-FZ. Federal Law “On Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 28 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 136 135 134 133 132 teed by Article3ofProtocol No.1. was disproportionate andtherefore violated the right to free electionsguaran voting for prisoners all established in Article32(3) of the Federal Constitution Gladkov vRussia which the need challenged to implement theECtHR judgment in was brought beforeCourt theConstitutional in 2016 by theMinistry of Justice, conflict a such of resolution the torelating case only) the date, to (and first The implementedbe onthebasisthatitconflicts withtheFederal Constitution. cannot body rights human international an of decision a that find to Court Court oftheRussiantional Federation” was made,allowing theConstitutional Following this,inDecember 2015, an amendmentto theLawthe Constitu “On internationaltreaties have donot supremacy over theFederalConstitution). stood as referring to ordinary laws only, andnot theFederalis, Constitution (that The Court also stated inArticle15(4) shall beunder that “law” Court. stitutional the Court, ultimate jurisdictionConstitutional to decide which ofthedecisions prevailsCon the lies with the of finding a and ECtHR the of finding a between be unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court ruled that in the event of a conflict to Ratification on Law the find to declining although July2015, Furthermore,in in practice,lematic frustratingthe expectations of human rights advocates. of ECtHRcaselaw,of thecaselawthe application by theCourtremains prob Despite theunequivocalof theSupremeacceptance Courtofthebindingforce ECtHR initsown jurisprudence. the European Court.” by made findings and analysis of subject the been have which those to similar 138 137

Ibid., Anchugov andGladkov vRussia, “О Конституционном 7-ФКЗ № года 2015 декабря 14 the RussianFederation”, 14 December 2015,No.7-FKZ( FederalLawConstitutional amending theFederal“On LawConstitutional Court of on theConstitutional Конституционного Суда Российской Федерацииот 14июля2015№21-П). Russianthe Federation,of Court Constitutional the of (Постановление Judgment 21-P JulyNo. 14 2015, Суда РоссиииЕвропейского ments/Report%20for%2022%20October.docx ( plementation oftheConvention onHuman Rights”, 2012,available at:http://www.ksrf.ru/en/News/Docu See thepresentation by thePresident ofthe Russian Zorkin, V.D., Constitutional Court, “Challenges ofIm Конституционного See, for example, 27 FebruaryCourt, Judgment oftheConstitutional 2009, No. 4-P( ней Конвенции Пленума Freedomstal of4November 1950 and theProtocols thereto”, 27June2013, No. 21( by Courts of GeneralJurisdiction of theConvention for theProtectionRights ofHuman andFundamen Decision of thePlenarySession of theSupreme CourtoftheRussian Federation,the Application “On ” ). Para 2. 3 ofProtocol No.1can beachieved through someform ofpolitical in that respect andto decidewhether their compliance with Article toopen is [I]t the respondent Government to explore ways possible all Paras 101–112.

Верховного о защите . 137

Суда РоссийскойФедерацииот27февраля In that case, the ECtHR Inthat had foundthe blanket that on ban

Суда

Суде РоссийскойФедерации”). прав 132 The Constitutional Court hasrelied The Constitutional ondecisions of the № 21 от27 21 №

человека Суда ApplicationNo.11157/04 and15162/05,4July 2013. “ О внесении О

по

правам 133 и июня 138

основных TheECtHRnoted that:

2013 года2013 “О человека

Чернышев изменений

свободот : генезис Федеральный И.А. И.А. в применении Федеральный Правовые 4 и ноября 2009года №4-П). взаимовлияние

конституционный

90 оа и года 1950 позиции судами

конституционный

общей

Конституционного ). Anchugov and Постановление Постановление Протоколов

юрисдикции 136

закон от закон

закон 135 134 к ------

process or by interpreting the Russian Constitution by the competent justice or complicity? authorities – the Russian Constitutional Court in the first place – in harmony with the Convention in such a way as to coordinate their effects and avoid any conflict between them.139

The Constitutional Court held that the decision of the ECtHR could not be imple- mented in so far as it required recognition of the voting rights of prisoners as this would contradict the imperative prohibition on voting for prisoners set out in the Federal Constitution, which has supreme legal force in the Russian legal introduction system.140 However, the Court went on to note that the decision could be imple- mented, in so far as it relates to “ensuring justice, proportionality and differentiation of application of the restriction of electoral rights”, noting that disenfranchisement only happened when a custodial sentence was given to an offender, 141 This second line of reasoning is questionable given that the ECtHR had already concluded thatand thissentencing was only decisions done where do not a lesser take into penalty account would possible not suffice. disenfranchisement or assess the proportionality of disenfranchisement.142

The Constitutional Court made it clear that the Federal Constitution has supremacy in the national legal system.143 The Court went further, questioning the ECtHR’s “evaluative” interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and stating that Russia had the “right to insist” on the understanding of Article 3 as at the time it came into effect in the Russian legal system, given that the Federal Constitution does not allow Russia to conclude international treaties which contradict constitutional provisions.144 Any previous arguments that provisions of international treaties or norms and principles of international law may have supremacy over Constitutional norms have clearly now been extinguished by the Court.145

1.7.5 National Law

1.7.5.1 Power to Legislate on Matters Relating to Human Rights

In accordance with Article 15(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Federal Con- stitution has supreme legal force in the entire territory of Russia. The provisions of the Federal Constitution therefore prevail over federal and regional legislation. Article 76(5) of the Federal Constitution provides that in the event - of a conflict between federal and regional laws, federal law prevails if the sub 139 Ibid., Para 111. 140

ParaJudgment 1. of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 19 April 2016, No. 12-P (Постановление Конституционноо Суда Российской Федерации от 19 апреля 2016 года № 12-П), Operative Part, 141 Ibid., Para 2. 142 See above, note 137, Para 106. 143 See above, note 140, Paras 2.1 and 4.2. 144 Ibid., Paras 4.2 and 4.3. 145 A discussion of this issue can be found in Maggs, P.B., Schwartz, O., and Burnham, W., Law and Legal System 29 of the Russian Federation, Juris, 2015, p. 33. 30 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 149 148 147 146 toorientation belongs every(althoughbeing” human theLawexplicitly notes Protection“On Morals”, ofPublic which acknowledges“the right that to sexual regional law beingpassed to this end is the 1995 Law of the Krasnoyarsk Region this by identified example only However,the identity). gender bly encompasses discrimination onthebasisof sexualorientation, andpossi Article 19(2) of the Constitution(which, as is discussed in Part 1.7.5.2 below, discrimination maytopassed pursuant be guarantee theequality enshrined in FederalAccordingly,Constitution. regionallaws to protect LGBT persons from existingdiscriminationprovided they that contradict donot federallaw or the overcomingat aimed areas specific in laws adopt to thereforeable are Regions federal legislationinthesamefield). the time(andlawon theissueat was thereforein contradiction not any with homosexuality”because federal amongminors unconstitutional law was silent thereforerefused to regionalfirst the find law which prohibited “propaganda of eral theregionslaw issilent, may legislate to protectrights. human The Court Constitution, andisthereforenature. However,“secondary” ofa where fed in thisspherelegislation accord must federal with the Federaland legislation accordance withArticles15(1) and 76(5) of theFederalConstitution, regional the realisation of human rights withtheFederation. eraland regional government the regions meansthat share responsibility for this jointjurisdiction of thefed Courtheldthat In 2008, the Constitutional (or where federal law issilent). the regions may only legislate to protect rights inaccordance withfederallaw erationmay therefore regulateprotect and rights throughwhereas legislation, regions regarding the the FederalConstitution provides for joint jurisdiction of the federation andthe man. Federationhas jurisdiction to protectand the rights freedoms and of man. accordanceIn the Federal with Constitution, thestate hasthedutyto respect joint competence. the federation, orwithinasphere inwhich thefederation andtheregions have ject matter ofthelaw either falls withinthesphere ofexclusive competence of 150 ganda ofhomosexuality” was passedin2013. See above, note 130, Decision Court of of the Constitutional Russia. The federallaw which banned “propa (Постановление 4-P No. 2008, ционного March 11 Russia, of Court Constitutional the of Judgment above, note 130. restrictionsrights of human are allowed only byfederal a law (Article 55(3) of theConstitution).Alsosee as authorising regions to introduce administrative sanctionsfor “propaganda ofhomosexuality,”although Article 72(b)oftheFederalConstitution. This provision has beeninterpreted byCourt theConstitutional ulation andprotection oftherights andlibertiesofthehumanbeingcitizen.” Federal71(c) ofthe Article providesConstitution the jurisdictionoffederation that includes the“reg Article 2oftheFederal Constitution. 147 Consequently, regions only have residual powers in thisarea. However,

Суда РоссийскойФедерацииот11 марта protection regulate andprotect of therights andfreedoms of man. 150

2008года №4-П). 146 In accordance In Article 71,the with therights andfreedoms of 149 The Court stated that, in The Court stated that, 148 report TheFed Конститу- ofa ------that the exercise of this right can be restricted by a federal law with the aim of justice or complicity? protecting public morals).151

Similarly, regions may adopt laws in pursuance of the aims of federal laws relating to discrimination. For example, a region may adopt a law promoting social support measures with the purpose of overcoming disability-related discrimination in accordance with the federal law establishing the framework for social care for people with disabilities.152 Regions may also introduce additional guarantees for introduction for marriage or regulate other family matters where this is explicitly provided for insocial the supportFamily Code of children of the orRussian families. Federation However, (Family regions Code) may only or where define federal conditions law is silent on the matter.153 A region could not therefore adopt a law which allowed for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, as Article 12(1) of the Family Code provides that “the voluntary consent of the man and of the woman entering into” a marriage is required before it can be registered, and Article 1(2) provides that civil marriage is the only legally recognised form of relationship. status of an individual are regulated by federal law.154 Most regions therefore act onIt should the basis be notedof federal that, laws in practice establishing most –certain if not allguarantees – areas relating or delegating to the legal cer- 155 bytain the matters federation, to regions regions (and are thus often imposing reluctant financial to introduce obligations additional on regions).guarantees toDepending protect human on the rightsavailability beyond of thosefinances, minimums with many required regional by federalbudgets laws. allocated156

1.7.5.2 Federal Constitution

Article 19 of the Federal Constitution provides for a right to equality as follows:

1. All people shall be equal before the law and in the court of law. 2. The state shall guarantee the equality of rights and liberties regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property

151

Law of the Krasnoyarsk Region “On Protection of Public Morals”, 20 June 1995, No. 6-129, Article 3 (“Об 152 охранеSee, for общественнойexample, the Law нравственности”). of St. Petersburg See “On Part Special 1.7.5.4 Transportation for non-legislative Services measures for Selectedtaken in thisCategories regard.

of Citizens in St. Petersburg”, 5 July 2006, No. 397-60 (Закон Санкт-Петербурга от 5 июля 2006 года № 397-60 “О специальном транспортном обслуживании отдельных категорий граждан в Санкт- 153 Петербурге”).The Family Code of the Russian Federation, Article 3(2) ( 3(2)). Семейный кодекс Российской Федерации, 154 статьяNikitina, E., Limitation of Constitutional Human Rights in Legislations of Subjects of the Russian Federa- tion, Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. 2015. V. 3, I. 11 (

Никитина Е.Е. Ограничения конституционных прав человека законодательством субъекта Российской Федерации // Журнал российского права. 155 2015.For example, № 11). in accordance with the Federal Law “On Basic Principles of Social Care in the Russian Fed- eration”, 28 December 2013, No. 442-FZ (

Федеральный закон от 28 декабря 2013 года № 442-ФЗ “Об 156 основахHowever,социального in “wealthier”обслуживания regions, such asграждан Moscow в Российскойor St. Petersburg, Федерации”). there are many social programmes 31 going beyond the federal minimum. 32 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 157 following way: crimination onthebasisof sexualorientation. TheCourtexplained this inthe sexualrelationships”, theConstitutionalCourt Article 19 held that prohibits dis 2014,in considering In the federallaw “propagandabanning of non-traditional or (2)both,butsimply noted bothprovisions inbrackets. principle. The Court did not specify whether this wasto pursuant Article19(1) when establishing protective measures amounted to a violation of the equality edged that afailure of the law to accommodate persons disabilities with mental ianship overCourt acknowldisabilities, theConstitutional persons mental with haustiveof grounds. list For example,guardconcerning plenary in itsjudgment the generalthat provisionequality prohibits discrimination based onanon-ex tee of equality. However, anexamination of the Court’s jurisprudence indicates characteristiclar fallsapplicant of an or status guaranunder theconstitutional article hasbeenbreached.particular Nor does the Courtexplain why aparticu a that found has it whyexplaining specifically without findings its for basis the relate to each other. The Court often refers to severalclauses as constitutional The case lawCourt does oftheConstitutional not shed light onhow these clauses basis, exhaustively, of“social,racial, national,linguisticorreligious affiliation”. tence ofArticle19(2)prohibits “[a]ny restrictions oftherights ofcitizens”onthe regardless ofcertaingrounds provided inanon-exhaustive thesecondsen list, Whereas the first sentence of Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees equality 159 158

Ibid. See, Judgmentof the Russian above, ConstitutionalCourt, note 37,Para. 2.1. Конституционного Judgment of the ConstitutionalCourt of the Russian Federation, 27 June 2012, No. 15-P ( , Para. 2.1. 3. crete inthe normsofbranches of legislation. groups of persons with certain sexual orientation, isrendered con to someorothersocial groups, which maybeunderstood also as establishmentdoms or any of advantages belongingon depending limitation of among other andfree inrights things, inadmissibility Russian Federation.This constitutional principle, contemplating, the of Constitution the of 1) (Section 19 Article in fixed court, the on the ofall before basis of the principleofequality the law and possibilities forprotection and restoration their of violated rights persons becausetheir of sexual orientationensureand effective possiblesion of encroachmentand lawfulinterestsupon rights of theIn itsturn, state iscalled upon to take measures aimed at exclu Man andwoman shall haveand liberties equalrights andequal opportunities for their pursuit. national, linguisticorreligious grounds shallbeforbidden. stance. Any restrictionsof the of citizens rights onsocial, racial, tions, membershipofpublic associations or any other circum or employment status, residence,to attitude religion, convic 158

Суда РоссийскойФедерацииот27 июня 2012года №15-П). 159 157

Постановление ------The Court also noted that: justice or complicity?

Article 19 (Section 2) (…) guarantees protection equally to all persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation, and sexual orientation as such cannot serve as a lawful criterion for establishment of distinctions in the legal status of human and citizen.

Although it did not explicitly mention it, presumably the Court proceeded from the assumption that the “other circumstances” referred to in Article 19(2) introduction included sexual orientation. The Constitutional Court has not yet considered whether gender identity may also be encompassed by Article 19 as this question has not yet arisen in a case before it. However, it is arguable that persons with a particular gender identity, such as transgender individuals, could be considered a social group and thus also be protected from discrimination on the basis of - stances” in Article 19(2) by analogy with sexual orientation. Article 19(1), and also that their circumstances would fit within “other circum The case law of the Constitutional Court demonstrates that its approach to analysis of allegations of discrimination generally follows the approach established by the ECtHR:

As has been reiterated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Fed- eration any differentiation of legal regulation leading to differences in the rights and obligations of subjects of law must be carried out by the legislature in compliance with the requirements of the Consti- tution of the Russian Federation, including those deriving from the principle of equality (Article 19, part 1), by virtue of which differences are acceptable if they are objectively justified, warranted and pursue constitutionally meaningful goals, and the legal means used to achieve these objectives commensurate with them; observance of the principle of guaranteeing protection from all forms of discrimination in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms presumes, among other things, a ban on introducing such differences in the rights of persons belonging to the same category, which do not have an objective and reasonable justification (prohibition of different treatment of persons placed in the same or similar situations).160

Despite the commonalities in the approaches to the legal analysis of discrimination by the ECtHR and the Russian Constitutional Court, the outcomes of their analysis can vary dramatically. This variance is usually the result of different approaches being taken to striking the balance between various competing interests, public or private. Part Two of this report explores this in detail.

In accordance with Article 56(3) of the Federal Constitution, equality is not included as a non-derogable constitutional guarantee. This means that it can be

160 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 28 May 2010, No. 12-P ( 33

Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 28 мая 2010 года № 12-П). 34 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 163 162 161 discrimination onthebasisofsexual orientationorgender identity. from protection provide to exist laws specific such no above, noted Morals” lic ever,How otherthanthe1995 Lawunions. of theKrasnoyarsk RegionProtection “On ofPub trade with non-affiliation or affiliation on based discrimination Trade“On Unions, their Rights andGuarantees of their Activities” freedoms based oncertaincharacteristics. For example, Article9ofFederalLaw cising rights andfreedoms and prohibit any restrictions of human rights and provisions contain groups vulnerable prohibitingoften, discrimination. Most suchprovisions certain declarein exer equality of status the defining or life of or the Government. been noinitiatives taken to legislate onthismatter by theFederalParliament Russia has no comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation andthere have 1.7.5.3 NationalLawswith Anti-Discrimination Provisions orEquality be discriminatory: providesgency” any that measures adopted during astate of emergency cannot limited emergency.in timesof public However, theLaw “onaState of Emer

19 января1996года №10-ФЗ0. 10-FZ ( FederalLaw Trade “On Unions,their Rights andGuarantees of their Activities”, 19January1996, No. система at: http://asozd.duma.gov.ru ( See, The State Dumaof the Russian Federation, “Automated system for legislative activities”, available does notexplain how itrelates to Article56(3)oftheFederal Constitution. конституционный FederalLawConstitutional a State “On 30 May of Emergency” 2001, No. 3-FKZ, Article 28(2) ( 1. 2. Федеральный

обеспечения Measures applied in the conditions ofastate ofemergency Measures specified in Part One of this Article shall correspond shall Article this of One Part in specified Measures tions andalsoby virtueofother circumstances. associa societal with affiliation convictions, religion, towards attitude residence, of place position, official and property gin, exclusively onthesex,basis of race, nationality, language, ori againstnation groups individualpersonsor the of population discrimi any entail not shall and rights human of field the in froming international agreementstheof Russian Federation to theinternational obligationsthe of Russian Federationensu seriousness ofagiven situation. carriedshall be within out such requiredlimits asmaybe by the federal laws and other actsofthestatutory Russian Federation izens established by the Constitutionof the Russian Federation, societal associations, theand freedoms rights of people and cit local self-administration bodies, theorganisationsof rights and the of bodiessubjects authority of the of Russian Federation, utive authorities, legislative (representative) and executive entailing thealteration (limitation)powers of federalof exec

закон от 30 мая 30 от закон 162

законодательной ао “ профессиональных “О закон However, many legislative acts regulating specific areas specific regulating acts legislativeHowever, many Государственная 2001 года № 3-ФКЗ “О “О 3-ФКЗ № года 2001

деятельности

Дума Российской Федерации. Автоматизированная Федерации. Российской Дума

). союзах чрезвычайном и гарантиях 161

положении их

етлнси от деятельности” 163 Федеральный prohibits ” ------). Thelaw - - - -

In other cases, laws may contain a non-discrimination clause similar to the gen- justice or complicity? eral equality provision in the Constitution. These general clauses may be interpreted to include protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity due to the protection they offer to “social groups” or in relation to “other circumstances”. For example, Article 5 of the Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of Health Care of Citizens in the Russian Federation”164 reads as follows:

The state provides citizens with health care regardless of sex, race, introduction age, ethnicity, language, presence of disorders, conditions, origin, material or official status, place of residence, religious or other beliefs, affiliation with nongovernmental organisations, or other circumstances. The State guarantees to citizens protection from all forms of discrimination based on the existence of any disorders.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code) makes discrimina- director of a commercial or other non-governmental entity) a crime. Article 136 oftion the by Criminal persons Codeacting provides in their officialthat: capacity (as a state or municipal official, or

Discrimination, that is, a violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of man and citizen based on gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property or official status, place or residence, attitude to religion, convictions, or affiliation with public associations or any social groups, made by a person through the use of the official position thereof – shall be punishable with a fine in the amount of 100 thousand to 300 thousand roubles, or in the amount of a wage/salary or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one year to two years, or by deprivation of the right to hold specified offices or engage in specified activities for a term of up to five years, or by obligatory labour for a term of up to 480 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of up to two years, or by deprivation of liberty for the same term.

The list of prohibited grounds for discrimination provided in Article 136 of the Criminal Code is exhaustive and includes sex, race, ethnicity, language, origin, - tion with non-governmental organisations or certain social groups. material or official status, place of residence, religious attitudes, beliefs, affilia Unlike the Criminal Code, Article 5.62 of the Code of Administrative Offences - petrator. Compared to the Criminal Code, the list of prohibited grounds for dis- criminationpenalises any in act the of Code discrimination of Administrative regardless Offences of the is officialbroader capacity and includes of the suchper characteristics as skin colour, family status and social status as well as age:

164 Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of Health Care of Citizens in the Russian Federation”, 21 Novem- ber 2011, No. 323-FZ ( 35 Федеральный закон “Об основах охраны здоровья граждан в Российской Федерации” от 21 ноября 2011 года № 323-ФЗ). 36 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 168 167 166 165 Criminal Code andalso theCode of Administrative Offences. is included in thenotionof tation a“socialgroup” for the purposes of both the dormant. forof anti-discriminationprovisions violation sotheseprovisionsand remain there were noknowncases inRussia ofcriminaloradministrative prosecution lishing discriminationunder theseCodes. Atthis report, of publishing the time Code and the Code of Administrative Offences or of the legal tests used for estab scope of the general anti-discrimination provisions contained intheCriminal legal the to any,as if clarification limited, provides courts Russian the of dence As demonstrated by thesubsequentpartsof the present report, thejurispru amount to acriminalcharge withinthemeaningofECHR. number ofoccasionsthatadministrative liabilityprovided for inRussian law may be can extremely high andcomparable with criminal offences. TheECtHR hasheldona detention administrative of days fifteen imposed for someofadministrative offences. of penalty maximum a ever, how fines, with punishable normally are offences administrative crimes, Unlike those acting in an official capacity) in 2011 to become an administrative offence. was thecaseinrelation to discrimination,which was decriminalised (except for when anoffence isdecriminalised, itmay becomeanadministrative offence. This those offences explicitly listed intheCriminal Code are considered crimes.Thus, not considered to becrimesanddonotaffect anindividual’s criminal record. Only between criminaloffences (crimes) andadministrative offences. Thelatter are As noted above inPart 1.6,theRussian legal system makes acleardistinction 169

See alsoPart 2.1andPart 2.2where LGBT were notconsidered asasocialgroup. Court of theRussianof theConstitutional See Judgment Federation,23 September 2014, above note 37. to prosecute onthebasisthatLGBT communityisnota“socialgroup”. decisions of all since itwas introduced fairly recently. SeePart 2.1 below for a discussion of decisions not risdiction, revealdid not any offences underthesearticles.However,copies contain does not the database automatedState the systemsearchof A “Justice”, generalof ju courts the of database official an whichis See, for example, года №135-ФЗ). minors”, introduced by FederalLaw, 29 June 2013, No. 135-FZ ( As is thecasefor the administrative offence of“propagandaof non-traditional sexual relationships among an aggravatingfactor. Российской discrimination wasacrimeregardlessofthecapacityperpetrator, however,officialstatuswas кодекс Уголовный в изменений внесении “О Федерации 420-ФЗ и отдельные № законодательные акты года Российской Федерации”) 2011 декабря 7 от закон (Федеральный 420-FZ No. Federation”,Russian2011, the December of 7 Acts Legislative tain As amendedby Federal Law “OnAmending theCriminal Code oftheRussian Federation andCer the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount the in citizens on fine administrative an of imposition the iation with publicassociationsorany social groups –shall entail affil convictions, religion, to attitude status, official and property our,family status,social status, age nationality,language, origin, doms andlegitimate interestson gender, depending race, skincol thatDiscrimination, is,aviolation freeof humanandcivil rights, of 50thousand to 100thousand roubles. of oneto three thousand roubles andonlegal entities inthe amount 168 However, the Constitutional Court has confirmed that sexualorien that However,confirmed has Court Constitutional the Mikhaylova vRussia , ApplicationNo.46998/08,19November 2015,Paras 50–75. 166 Moreover, in some cases, fines are Федеральный 169 167

. Before this amendment,this . Before Nonetheless, as is закон от 29 июня 29 от закон

- - - 2013 165 ------explored in Part 2.1, this is not always recognised by lower courts or the author- justice or complicity? ities more broadly.

The Constitutional Court has also recognised that “social group” in Article 3 of the Russian Labour Code170 includes those of a certain sexual orientation.171 Article 3 recognises the prohibition of discrimination as a general principle of labour relations and contains an open-ended list of prohibited grounds of discrimination:

Everyone shall have equal opportunities to realise his/her labour introduction rights.

No one can be constrained in his/her labour rights and freedoms or get any advantages irrespective of sex, race, colour of skin, nationality, language, origins, property, social or position status, age, domi- cile, religious beliefs, political convictions, affiliation or non-affiliation with public associations as well as other factors not relevant to the professional qualities of the employee.

Establishment of distinctions, exceptions, preferences as well as limitations of employees’ rights which are determined by the requirements inherent in a specific kind of work as set by federal laws or caused by the special attention of the state to the persons requiring increased social and legal protection shall not be deemed discrimination.

Persons considering themselves to be discriminated against in the sphere of labour shall be entitled to petition the federal labour inspectorate bodies and/or courts applying for restoration of their violated rights, compensation for the material loss and redress for the moral damage.

Despite the clear statement from the Constitutional Court that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under Article 3, the report was not able to identify a case alleging discrimination that had been brought under Article 3 on this basis. This is perhaps symptomatic of the lack of litigation that has been brought in relation to the application of Article 3 more broadly.172

In the leading case before the Constitutional Court in the labour context the applicant, a man, challenged as discriminatory the guarantee in Article 261 of the Labour Code against dismissal of a woman who has a child below the age of three. The Constitutional Court held that the application of this guarantee to women only did not violate the Federal Constitution as it was aimed at achiev-

170

Labour Code of the Russian Federation, 30 December 2001, No. 197-FZ, Article 3 (Трудовой кодекс 171 РоссийскойSee Judgment Федерации, of the Constitutional от 30 декабря Court of 2001 the Russianгода, № Federation, 197-ФЗ). 23 September 2014, above note 37. 172 For an overview of discrimination cases in the labour context see: Batsvin, N., “Analysis of Case Law of Work-Related Discrimination”, Trudovoe Pravo 37 , с ). , Vol. 4, 2013, pp. 19–38 (Бацвин Н. Анализ судебной практики по делам связанным дискриминацией на работе 38 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 174 173 itly acknowledge that: issued by theRussianDevelopmentand Social MinistryofHealth in 2006 explic the guidelines onpreventionple, ofHIV-infectionvarious among socialgroups Forlevelbodies. throughexamofficial governmentand the departments at ing ProtectionMorals” ofPublic noted above), thisideahasbeenslowly penetrat regionallaw the exception(with ofthe1995 Lawof theKrasnoyarsk Region “On to sexualorientation asaprohibited ground of discrimination in federallaw or While itis clear from the above analysis that there are no explicitreferences 1.7.5.4 Official Recognition of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Prohibited vant to theprofessional qualitiesoftheemployee.” identity would notbeconsideredof “otherfactors aswithinthe ambit not rele of the Labour Code, it is difficult to see how discrimination on the basis of gender this wouldgroup”the “social included within be ground. addition, inrespect In discrimination on the basis of gender identity. However, again, itis arguablethat Criminal Code, the Code of Administrative Offences ortheLabourCode apply to Supreme the either of thegeneralCourt that prohibitions ondiscrimination contained inthe or Court Constitutional the from clarification no been has there provisionAs isthecasewithequality provided by theFederalConstitution, sonable explanation. explained thissecond that difference intreatmentlacked objective an andrea excludedit that fathers who are thesolebreadwinners inthefamily.The Court However, theCourtfoundto thisnorminviolationoftheConstitution theextent ing factualand equalopportunities forequality women ascompared to men.

ВИЧ-инфекции Population Groups. Practical Guidelines and SocialDevelopment,Ministry ofHealth новление Конституционного Judgment of Courtthe of Constitutional the Russian Federation, 15 December 2011, No. 28-P ( Grounds for Discrimination heterosexual contacts”. as “condoms protect against infection both inhomosexual and howto prevent infection HIV neutral,be should MSM among such relations threaten you with AIDS.” Accordingly, information about be inferred, for example, from the statement that “homosexual which are often notperceived asaggressive by heterosexuals, can ments ofaggression onthe partofthe heterosexual majority, thefact that reactwill MSM negatively to materials.useful Ele homophobia penetrating the informational material can leadto encountered obstacles to effective prevention. Any elements of and discriminationagainst MSM(homophobia)are frequently ylaxis measures aimedatpreventing the spread of HIV. Stigma sex with men]shouldbeaprerequisite for the success ofproph [R]especting aregime oftolerance towards MSM[menwho have

среди

различных

Суда РоссийскойФедерацииот15 декабря2011года№28-П

групп 174 , 20 December 2006, , No. 6834-PX(“

населения Organisation of Prevention ofHIV Infection amongDifferent . Методические

рекомендации Организация ”).

профилактики - - ). Поста- 173 - - - - -

Based on these non-binding guidelines, which are still in force, the Federal justice or complicity? AIDS Centre publishes information on the prevalence of AIDS, and this information is free from stereotyped or biased language about sexual minorities.175 A further example is the 2013 order of the Russian Ministry for Regional Development “On Setting-up a Working Group for Improving Investments and Attractiveness of the Regions of the Russian Federation”. This order stipulates that investment projects seeking state or municipal support cannot be considered if, inter alia, they involve activities that may lead to discrimination on the 176 ground of sexual orientation. introduction

In addition to measures taken at the federal level, some non-legislative measures level in relation to protecting persons from discrimination based on sexual orientation.(which are However, legally bindingsuch measures as official have decrees) also been have limited: been taken at the regional

The 2014 order of the Committee for Town-Planning and Architecture of the St. Petersburg Government “On Approval of Architectural and Ar- tistic Regulations for Displaying Information and Standard Objects for Displaying Information in St. Petersburg” explicitly prohibits any information constituting an insult on the basis of sexual orientation from being displayed.177

The 2007 Ordinance of the Head of the Kumenskiy District of the Kirov Oblast, which approved the Internal Code of Labour Conduct in the municipal bodies of the Kumenskiy Municipality, prohibits municipal employees from discriminating against, and intimidating, anyone based on their sexual orientation as well as on any other grounds unrelated to the 178

official functions of an organisation. - lic of Tatarstan, “On Sending the Provisions of the Republican Charity An official letter the Ministry of Education and Science of the Repub-

Action ‘Spring Goodness Week’” in 2015 suggested that possible activi

175 The Federal AIDS Centre, Information notice: HIV-infection in the Russian Federation as of 31 December 2014

, 2014, available at: http://www.hivrussia.org/files/spravkaHIV2014.pdf, (Федеральный центр 176 СПИД.Order of СправкаВИЧ-инфекция the Ministry of Economics в Росси of theиско Republicи Федерации of Mordovia, на 31 “On декабря approving 2014 theг.). Scheme for interac-

tion while implementing state-supported projects”, 30 April 2014, No. 67-p, (Приказ Минэкономики Республики Мордовия от 30 апреля 2014 года № 67-п “О схеме взаимодействия при реализации 177 инвестиционныхDecision of the Committee проектов for с Architectureгосударственной and Urban поддержкой/государственным Development of the St. Petersburg участием”) Government, . “On Approval of Architecture and Artistic Rules for Objects for Displaying Information and Standard Objects for Displaying Information in St. Petersburg”, 30 April 2014, Para. 1.7.3.1 (

Распоряжение Комитета по градостроительству и архитектуре Правительства Санкт-Петербурга от”). 30.04.2014 N 4-н “Об утверждении архитектурно-художественного регламента объектов для размещения 178 информацииDecision of the и Head типовых of theобъектов Kumenskiyдля Districtразмещения of the Kirovинформации Oblast, “On в Approval Санкт-Петербурге of Internal Labour Rules in Local Government Bodies of the Kumenskiy Municipal District”, 6 February 2007, No. 2, Para 3.2.4

39 (Распоряжение Главы Куменского района Кировской области от 6 февраля 2007 года № 2 “Об утверждении Правил внутреннего трудового распорядка в органах местного самоуправления Куменского муниципального района”). 40 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 182 181 180 179 is legal recognition ofa changeingender. measures identify not taken inrelation to discrimination on thebasisof gender identity,did although there report the that note to significant particularly is It entation, maritalorfamily statusandsocio-economicstatus. education, ethnicity,gender, origin, race,national language, religion, sexualori culturalvidual, and role differences, including those involving age,disability, ulatesone thecore that principles ofpsychologists ethical isrespect for indi Society, anationwide professional body which unites leading psychologists, stip to apatient. other factors,amongst to preventhim orher from exercising hisorherduties a doctorble that not allow will any considerations basedonsexualorientation, CongressNational Doctors of Medical of Russia in2012 proclaims initspream fessional EthicsPhysician ofa of theRussian Federationapproved by theFirst is slowly finding its way into formal standards and regulations. The Code of Pro way inwhich a prohibition of discrimination on the basisof sexualorientation While not formingtation. partoflaw, thesestandards provide examplesof the vide examples ofanexplicitprohibition ofdiscrimination based onsexualorien and federal the both regionallevel, at professionalstandards ethical inmedicine and psychology pro measures official other and legislation to addition In ination against LGBT individuals. effect ontheregions’to willingness take measuresprohibiting aimed at discrim imises discrimination basedonsexualorientation. This law hashadachilling sexualtional relationships”, which, as discussed in Part 2below, pretedlight in of thefederal prohibitinglegislation “propaganda of non-tradi legislative sphere. Furthermore, any regionalacts mustbeinter andmunicipal is thereforeIt progress clearthat has beenvery slowindeed, particularly inthe 183

See Part 2.3.5. психологическое Russian Psychological Society, деонтологии 19 June 2013, No. 1105 ( the Health CareDepartmentoftheAdministration oftheVladimirOblast”, deontology at and medical of Order example, Health Care establishing anadvisory Department of “On the Vladimir council onmedicalethics Oblast, for regions, several in acts normative in incorporated was Code The Федерации”). sian Federation ConferenceSee First National of Russian Doctors, See Part 2.3.1. (“О 3199/15 No. 2015, March Положения 3 Week, Goodness Spring Action Charity Republican of Letter of the Ministry of Education andScience of the Republic of Tatarstan, onSending the Provisions sexual orientation. awareness ofproblems ofdiscrimination basedongrounds including ties during thisweek couldincludeadonorday withtheaimofraising 181

Республиканской

при Likewise, the 2012 Code of Ethics of the Russian Psychological , 5 October, 2012,Preamble(“

общество департаменте “ О создании , Этический 179

благотворительной The Ethics Code of Psychologists

здравоохранения

Общественного 180

кодекс

Кодекс

психологов 183 The Code ofProfessional Ethics ofDoctor ofthe Rus

администрации акции

совета профессиональной “ Весенняя ,

по принят

медицинской , 14 February 2012 (

14декабря2012 года) Владимирской

неделя

этики 182

добра этике

рч Российской врача de facto и и ”).

области медицин-ской направлении Российское . legit ”). ------

2. ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT PERSONS IN COURTS: JUDICIAL PRACTICE

This Part of the report examines the jurisprudence of the Russian courts in relation to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) per-

- sons. It is divided into six parts: hate-motivated violence against LGBT persons;- hate speech against LGBT persons; violations of the rights to freedom of expres sioneducation. and assembly Despite ofthe LGBT research persons; seeking restrictions to cover on all the areas right of tolife, freedom the majority of asso of ciation of LGBT organisations; family and private life; and the right to work and organisations have been very active in seeking the protection of the courts when thetheir cases rights identified to expression, fall within assembly the first and four association parts of this in particular Part. LGBT have activists been vioand- lated. The dearth of jurisprudence in the areas of family and private life, work and education is likely a combination of a number of factors: a reluctance by individuals to initiate legal proceedings which would require them to reveal that they are LGBT and discuss their private life, due to a strong perception that this - maysphere expose in relation them to whichrisk; a theperception publication by individuals of judgments that has courts been will restricted fail to vindue dicateto their their containing rights; andsensitive the fact personal that there information may be cases (see Partin the 1.3 private of this and report). family

As is clear from this Part, the jurisprudence of the courts in relation to LGBT rights tells a mixed tale. While there have been a number of positive judgments, the overall approach of the courts to cases involving LGBT persons is more often negative. A result of this inconsistency is that there is no clear judicial position on the application of a number of basic rights to the LGBT community in Russia, leaving members of the community with uncertainty in matters which affect their everyday lives.

2.1 Hate-Motivated Violence against LGBT Persons International human rights law requires states to take legislative and other measures to protect LGBT persons from hate-motivated violence. This includes prohibiting, investigating and prosecuting such violence, and also providing remedies for such violence when it occurs.1 States must also exercise due dili-

1 General Comment No. 35: Liberty and security of person, 15 December 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, International Covenant on Civil andReport Political submitted Rights (ICCPR), by the United Articles Nations 6 and High 9; Human Commissioner Rights Committee, for Human Rights on discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender 41 identityPara 9; and, UN HumanDoc. A/HRC/ Rights29/23 Council,, 4 May 2015

, Paras 11–12. 42 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 6 5 4 3 2 emphasised, includingincasesinvolving homophobicviolence,that: the European Convention onHumanRights (ECHR). freedom fromtorture degradingand inhuman and treatment 3 of under Article by private individuals,orderin totheir obligation meet to the right uphold to must provide adequate protection from violence,includingviolenceperpetrated The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has long beenclearthatstates man ordegrading treatment orpunishment noted that: his first report for 2016, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhu phobia andtransphobia asaggravatingfactors for purposes of sentencing. statesthat address violence byhate-crime enacting lawshomo establish that der identity. addressing hate crimes committedgrounds onthe ofsexualgen orientation and Nations mechanisms have repeatedly notedstates that mustenactlegislation geted becauseoftheir sexualorientation andgender identity.” tar those (…) including – violence of risk particular at those of protection the High Commissioner for HumanRights, duediligence“requires States to ensure the requirementto preventill-treatment of LGBT persons. As hasbeennoted by quate measures to protect people from hate-motivated violence fallsshort of and other ill-treatmentcarried out by private individuals. prohibiting,including investigating, prosecuting of torturepunishing acts and gence inpreventing LGBT persons from facing torture andother ill-treatment, 7 MC vBulgaria treatment orpunishment Human Rights Council, See POL/CO/4, 16July 2007,Para 20. 20 January 2011, Para 25; and Committee against Torture, 2006, Para 25; Committee against Torture, Committee, inInternational HumanRightsand GenderIdentity Law United Nations,OfficeoftheHigh Commissioner for Human Rights, Ibid. or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman Cruel, Other Articles3and16; Punishment, and Torture against Convention 7; Article ICCPR, Human Rights Council, , HumanRights Council,Para 20. omitting suspicious factsomitting that indicativemay be violenceof induced deliverfully reasoned, impartialandobjective decisions,without evidence,explore all practicaldiscovering means of the truth and ever isreasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the motives possible discriminatory authorities (…)The do what must authorities to have take the duty all reasonable steps to unmask investigatingWhen suchviolent incidents, State asill-treatment, implicitly, prohibited actsto beperformed with impunity. stereotypes inamannerthat enables orauthorizes, explicitly or ever their laws, policies orpractices perpetuate harmfulgender States to fail prevent intheirduty torture andill-treatmentwhen 4 Concluding United States Observations: ofAmerica The High Commissioner for HumanRights recommended in 2015 , Applicationno.39272/98, 4December2003. Report ofthe Special Rapporteuron torture andothercruel, or degrading inhuman , 5January2016, UN Doc.A/HRC/31/57. above, note 1,

Ibid. , HumanRights Council,Paras 13and14. Para Concluding Mongolia Observations: 78. Concluding Poland Observations: , 2012, p. 19; United Nations Human Rights Rights Human Nations United 19; p. 2012, ,

, UNDoc.CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, 18December Born Free andEqual: Sexual Orientation 7 The Court has repeatedly 2 Afailure to take ade , UNDoc.,CAT/C/MNG/CO/1, 6 3 Various United , UNDoc. - -

CAT/C/ 5 In - - - - - by, for instance, racial or religious intolerance, or violence moti- justice or complicity? vated by gender-based discrimination.8

The ECtHR has stated that to treat violence that has a discriminatory motive on an equal footing with violence that has no such motive “would be turning a blind eye to 9 Failing to make a distinction in the way such cases are handled may amount to a violationthe specific of thenature right of to acts non-discrimination that are particularly contained destructive in Article of fundamental 14 of the ECHR. rights.”10 addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: Hate-motivated violence against LGBT persons and the failure by the authorities to address the discriminatory grounds for crimes against LGBT persons have been regularly reported by human rights organisations in Russia.11 However, few such cases have reached courts for a number of inter-related reasons. Firstly, the investigation of such crimes often disregards any hate motive as central to the case. Secondly, the victims of homophobic violence are reluctant to report such instances to police, considering this to be an ineffective remedy.12 Thirdly, intim- idation of victims of homophobic crimes by law enforcement bodies, including through disclosure of their sexual orientation and through other harassment, discourages LGBT individuals from reporting or pursuing their cases.13

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code) contains several legal avenues that may be used for tackling hate motivated crimes. Article 63(1) (e) of the Criminal Code contains a list of circumstances for the purpose of imposing aggravated punishment for all crimes:

The following circumstances shall be deemed as aggravating: (…) commission of a crime for reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or by reason of hatred or enmity with respect to some social group. for the purposes of this provision.14 In addition, for certain crimes, the commis- The Constitutional Court has confirmed that LGBT persons are a “social group”

8 Identoba and Others v Georgia MC and AC v Romania, Application No. 12060/12, 12 April 2016, Para 113. See also, Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, Application No. 43577/98 and 43579/98,, Application 6 July No. 2005, 73235/12, Para 160. 12 May 2015, Para 67; and 9 Ibid. 10 See, Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, above, note 8 See, Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v Georgia, above, note 7 See, Mudric v Moldova, above, note 7, Paras See, Identoba and Others v Georgia ; MC and AC v Romania, above, note 8, Para 113. , Paras 138–142; 60–64; , above, note 8, Para 67; and see, 11 Marzullo, M.A. and Libman, A.J., Hate Crimes and Violence Against LGBT People, Human Rights Campaign, Monitoring of human rights violations and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in 2014 2009; and Russian LGBT Network, Watch, License to Harm. Violence and Harassment, 2014 against (Мониторинг LGBT People нарушений and Activists прав in человека Russia, 2014. и дискриминации по признаку сексуальной ориентации и гендерной идентичности в 2014, году); Human Rights 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 43

Judgment of the Russian Constitutional Court, 23 September 2014, No. 24-P (Постановление Консти- туционного Суда Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2014 года, № 24-П), Para 2.1. 44 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 17 16 15 without providing further explanation. different District Court dismissedthediscriminationargument as“ungrounded” discriminatorytheybecause were motivated by hatred against LGBT a persons, later brought acivil actionagainst theoffender arguing thathisactionshadbeen for hooliganism onthebasisofhatred. that there was nohate motive for hisoffence which would allow aconviction ganism withtheuseofaweapon under Article 213(1)(a),theCourt having found assemblywas unlawful contraryand to morals.public wasHe convicted hooli of He shouted “sodomy isamortalsin” andlater argued inhisdefence thattheLGBT In 2012,amanusedtear gas to attackparticipants atanLGBT publicassembly. beat them. systemsonline dating to arrange to meetgay men,andthenwould torture and also convictedextremist inan ofparticipation group. The criminal group used “persons of non-traditionalsexual orientation”. The members ofthegroup were to havehate a motive towardssocial group, a which the Courtreferred to as tence when found to behate-motivated.of thecrimes werethis case,all In found sen higher a carry crimes these of above,notedall As bodilyharm. of infliction murder,threatof graveof infliction bodilytorture,deliberate harm, and battery bers of acriminalgroup were convicted ofanumbercrimes, the including groupswhoseactivities specifically mem targetednine 2015, LGBTIn persons. cases, there hasbeenalimited number of criminal cases against individuals or lence againstLGBT groups andfor theimpositionofhigher sentences insuch Despite the Criminal Code allowing for the prosecution of hate-motivated vio in Part 2.2below. enmity andtheabasementof a person’s dignity. These provisions are discussed is noteworthythe CriminalCode that prohibits both theincitement of hatred or into commission crime (Article 150), of a and vandalism(Article 214). Finally, it of murder or infliction of grave bodily harm (Article 119), involvement of minors 115), battery(Articles 111,112and (Article116),torture (Article117),threat differing penalties) for the following crimes: deliberate infliction of bodily harm The same is of true (with lifepenalty onment andamaximum imprisonment. committed by reason of hatred carries of eighta minimumpenalty years’ impris murder is bypunishable imprisonment of between sixand15 years,when but forpenalty) the crime. For example,topursuant Article105 of theCriminalCode group”increases the proscribed sentenceminimum andmaximum (or other hatred or enmity or by reason of hatred or enmity withrespect to some social sion ofthecrime “for reasonideological, racial, ofpolitical, or religiousnational

The caseispending onappeal. от Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Невского Judgment № 1-354/2013 ( VerdictPetrogradskiy of the Petersburg, DistrictCourtofSt. 11 November 2013, No.1-354/2013 № 1-16/2015 ( Verdict of the Sinarskiy District Court of theSverdlovsk 14 October 2015, No. 1-16/2015 Oblast, Приговор Петроградского районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от, 11 ноября 2013 года 2013 ноября 11 от, Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Петроградского Приговор года 2015 осктября 14 от области Свердловской суда районного Синарского Приговор 15

the ). ).

Nevskiy

District

Court

St . 17 Petersburg 16 When one of the victims of the attack Whenoneofthevictimsattack , 6 а 2015 мая 26 , 26 May 2015,

года , о еу 2-2757/2015). № делу по No . 2-2757/2015 (Решение 2-2757/2015 . , , по делу по по делу по - - - - -

On 12 June 2012, in St. Petersburg, activists from the group “Alliance of Straights justice or complicity? for LGBT Equality” were attacked by a group of young men. The young men knocked posters, banners, and rainbow-coloured umbrellas out of the activists’

- orderlyhands, beatconduct the activistsand refused and to then classify fled. it Four as a activistshate crime were on physicallythe basis they injured did notand considerfiled reports LGBT with persons the police.a “social The group” police protected initially fromclassified hate crimethe case under as dis the law. One of the attackers was later charged by the police with “hooliganism” by reason of hatred under Article 213(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. However, these addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: charges were subsequently changed to battery because the investigator, relying on an expert’s opinion, concluded that “persons of non-traditional sexual orientation” cannot be considered as a social group. In Court, the attacker stated that he “was opposed to homosexual propaganda that contradicts [his] religious principles”. He explained that when he saw a group of people holding umbrellas

LGBT freedom”, he considered this to be an open form of “homosexual propaganda”and flags and with so herainbow decided colours to take in the their banner hands away. and aDespite banner these stating comments, “Alliance thefor Court did not identify the motive for the crime as a qualifying circumstance and instead found the perpetrator guilty of battery under Article 116(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.18

On 29 June 2013, the annual Gay Pride rally was held in a specially designated place for public assemblies in St. Petersburg. About 200 opponents came to the rally with the aim of disrupting it, including bringing their children with them in bombs at the participants while shouting homophobic slogans. Some also broke throughorder file the reports police of cordon “propaganda.” and hit participantsThe opponents in the threw rally, eggs, knocking stones, posters and smoke and attacks, and instead put the participants onto buses to take them to police sta- tionsflags outpurportedly of their hands. for their The own police safety. took Four almost friends no stepsparticipating to stop the in the opponents’ rally did not get on the bus as one of them felt sick. When they moved a few meters away from the bus, they were surrounded by a crowd who started to beat, kick and whip them. The police only intervened to stop the attack after a few minutes had passed. The police initially refused to instigate criminal proceedings in relation the police by doctors who examined the victims after the attack. The police were alsoto this provided attack despite with statements information from about the thevictims, injuries which inflicted stated being that providedthe attacks to against them were motivated by hatred against them as LGBT. Without inter- viewing the victims, the police came to the conclusion that there had been a be proven in court by the victims, without the participation of the public pros- ecutorsimple andact ofwithout battery, any which investigation is classified having as a “privatetaken place. prosecution”,19 The police i.e., refusedit must

18 Decision of the Justice of the Peace of Judicial District No. 201 in St. Petersburg, 24 December 2013 (

Постановление мирового судьи судебного участка № 201 Санкт-Петербурга от 24 декабря 19 2013 года). 45 Decision of the Investigating Officer of the Police Department of St. Petersburg, 9 July 2013, No. 76 (Поста- новление дознавателя отдела полиции Санкт-Петербурга от 9 июля 2013 года, № 76). 46 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 24 23 22 21 20 tolerance andrespect for diversity.” organise awareness-raisingincluding amongthepolice,promoting campaigns, Russia should“[p]ublicly condemnattacks against (…)LGBT persons (…), and tigation andprosecution ofsuchcrimes. The Committee alsorecommended that all crimes against members of vulnerable groups, including figures on the inves gated.” discriminationpromptly,and (…)shouldbe impartially effectively and investi LGBTincluding risk, at persons. TheCommittee statedof violence acts “all that Russiamend that take effective measures to ensure theprotectionpersons ofall Club’ inMoscowand the’Parisian Life Club’ inTyumen”. (LGBT) persons, such as alleged regarding the recent attacks on the ‘7 Free Days chargesbring and againstthose responsibleall forattacks violent against(…) police have failedto promptly reactto, ortoeffective carryout investigations against LGBT persons. In 2012, the Committee noted its concernreports“at that of theRussian authorities to investigateprosecute and hate-motivated crimes or Punishment(CATment Committee) hasvoiced its concern over thefailure The Committee againstTorture or Degrading andOtherCruel,Inhuman Treat have rightly beencriticisedasfalling shortofhumanrights obligations. commission of hooliganism. These failings of both theauthoritiesandcourts bic hatred as either an aggravating factor in sentencing, or as anelementinthe courts arealso clearthat largely failingto recognise or acknowledge homopho ure ofcourtsto address theseinadequacieswhen casescomebefore is It them. investigatingand prosecuting hate crimes against LGBT persons, and thefail These cases indicate theinadequacy in theapproach taken by theauthorities in ried out. However,over three yearsno investigation after theincident, has yet car been successfully soughtcourt ordera requiringinvestigationan that carried be out. Petersburg.the Dzerzhinsky District Courtof St. proceedings was later reversed by theprosecutor afterto asuccessfulappeal Pride and individuals supportingthem”. traditional sexual Petersburgorientation andtheparticipantsof the St. LGBT both sides in light of steadythe “the hostile relationships between persons of to recogniseas acrime as they the attack consideredthere that was enmityon 26 25

Ibid. Ibid 11 December2012,Para 15. Federation Russian the of report periodic fifth the on observations cluding Committee against Torture andOtherCruel, InhumanorDegrading Treatment orPunishment, Information provided by Dmitri Bartenev, thevictims’ Дзержинского районногосудаСанкт Judgment of the Dzerzhinskiy Petersburg, Distict Court of St. 18 December 2013 Прокурора центральногорайонаСанкт-Петербургаот20ноября 2013года Decision of theProsecutor oftheCentral Petersburg,District of St. 20 November 2013 Ibid ., Para 15(a). . 25 , Para 15(b). TheCommittee further recommendedRussia that compilestatisticson 23

-Петербурга от-Петербурга 18декабря2013года). 26

20 The decision not to initiate criminal lawyer , 15May 2016. 21 In addition, thevictimsalso In 24 It went It onto recom , UNDoc.CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, ). ( ( Постановление Постановление Con 22 ------

Following its examination of the periodic report of the Russian Federation in justice or complicity? 2015, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) also expressed its concern about reports of violence against LGBT persons.27 The Committee went on to note that it was concerned that Article 63(1)(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires that hate motivation be treated as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing, did not appear to have ever been applied in cases involving violence against LGBT individuals. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Russia:

[S]hould clearly and officially state that it does not tolerate any form addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: of social stigmatization of homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, or hate speech, discrimination or violence against persons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It should also (…) take all the steps necessary to strengthen the legal framework protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination and violence and ensure the investigation, prosecution and punishment of any act of violence motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity and apply the provisions of Article 63(1)(e) of the Criminal Code to such acts.28

2.2 “Hate Speech” against LGBT Persons The right to freedom of expression generally protects discriminatory statements that “offend, shock or disturb”.29 However, there is a recognition in international human rights law that states must protect people from “hate speech”. This is ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,most widely defined hostility in accordance or violence”. with30 Accordingly, Article 20(2) international of the ICCPR human namely rights “[a] law does not explicitly prohibit incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, in order to fully realise the right to non-discrimination, a prohibition of certain forms of hate speech is arguably required. Indeed, there is some indication that UN mechanisms are recognising the need to protect LGBT persons from hate speech.31

27 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federa- tion, UN Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, 28 April 2015, Para 10. 28 Ibid. 29 See, for example, Handyside v United Kingdom, Vejdeland and Others v Sweden, Application No. 1813/07, 9 February 2012, Para 53. See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, ArticleApplication 19: Freedoms no. 5493/72, of Opinion 7 December and Expression 1976, Para, UN 49; Doc.and CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, Para 11. 30 The same approach is adopted in Principle 12 of the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality, April 2009. 31 See Article 19, Responding to Hate Speech against LGBTI People, October 2013, pp. 12, 25 and the discussion of the concluding observations of the HRC therein. See also, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Romania, UN Doc. CERD/C/ROU/CO/16-19, 13 September 2010, Para 4, in which the Commitee welcomes a prohibition on broadcasting speech that amounts to incitement of hatred, including on the basis of 47 ‘Hate Speech’ Explained: A Toolkit, 2016, p. 86.

sexual oritentation; and Article 19, 48 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 36 35 34 33 32 giventention.is clear that, It theimportance ofensuringtheright to freedom of The nature ofthespeech which should beprohibited remains amatter ofcon hate speechbeprohibited. Ithasdefinedsuchspeechbroadly: der identity, theCommittee of Ministers has recommended homophobic that states protect peoplefrom hate speech on grounds of sexualorientation or gen While theCourt has notgoneasfar astothe ECHR mandates holdthat that question didnotreach thelevel ofincitement to hatred. to bevalid pursuantto Article 10(2), even ininstanceswhere theexpression in a democratic society. pursue oneof the legitimate aimssetforth in Article10(2) and benecessary in 10(2). whether restrictiona onexpression, where itexists, ispermitted underArticle level,such a tonot is mandateprohibition a onhaterather speechbut to explore tion values. reacheslevel sucha is consideredit that the destructionofConven asaimed at vided for in theConvention. This approach appearsto beused when hate speech perform anythe destructionofany actaimedat oftherights andfreedoms” pro interpreted as giving any “group or person any right to engage inany activity or is first The ways. throughtwo Article17of the ECHR, which provides the Conventionthat be cannot in speech hate of issue the approached has ECtHR The racial andregional differences ofpeople,theECtHRhasrecognised that: group). However,case related ina to commentsmadeinrespect ofreligious, The ECHR does not containanobligation to prohibit “hate speech” (against any 37 to combat discriminationon grounds ofsexual orientation orgender identity Ibid., Vejdeland vSweden Application No.1813/07,9February 2012,Paras 49,50. v Denmark, ECHR, Article 10(2). See, for example, Ibid Speech See, European Court of Human Rights, Erbakan vTurkey See, for example, 34 . even prevent allforms ofexpression which spread, incite, promote or [I]t maybeconsidered necessary indemocratic societies to sanctionor ination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. of inciting,spreadingpromoting or hatredother or formsof discrim which maybereasonably understood aslikely to produce the effect [A]ll forms ofexpression, including inthe mediaandonthe Internet, alties” imposedare proportionate to the legitimate aimpursued. it isensured that the “formalities”, “conditions”, “restrictions” or“pen hatred basedonintolerancejustify (including intolerance religious), if Inorder to bepermissible, any restriction must beprovided for by law, , CouncilofEurope, 2009,pp. 19–31. 33 plcto N. 59/9 2 Spebr 94 Prs 52; and 25–28; Paras 1994, September 23 15890/89, No. Application The second approach, utilisedwhen hate speech does not reach Council ofEurope, , ApplicationNo.59405/00,6July 2006,Para 56(unofficialtranslation from French). 35 , Paras 49–60. The ECtHR has found restrictions on homophobic speech CommitteeMinisters of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5on measures Fact– Hate Sheet Speech

Handyside v United Kingdom , June 2016; and Weber, A., , above note, 29, Paras 48–49; Paras 29, note, above , 36

, 31March 2010. Vejdeland vSweden 37 32 Manual onHate - - Jersild - - - - ,

- justice or complicity? sons should be limited to what is necessary in a democratic society. It is also clear thatexpression some limitation – including on the freedom right to of offend expression – what is is necessary required toto ensureprotect respect LGBT per for the rights of LGBT persons, though the content of such limitation remains to be settled. In the absence of settled law on this matter, the Declaration of Principles on Equality sets a necessary minimum standard in providing adequate protection for protected groups, by stating clearly that all acts of incitement to violence must be prohibited. Principle 7 states: addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: Any act of violence or incitement to violence that is motivated wholly or in part by the victim having a characteristic or status associated with a prohibited ground constitutes a serious denial of the right to equality. Such motivation must be treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of offences of violence and incitement to violence, and States must take all appropriate action to penalise, prevent and deter such acts.

In summary, there remains a lack of clear consensus at the international and regional levels as to the extent to which hate speech against LGBT persons must or can be prohibited without impinging on the right to freedom of expression. approaches states take in their national laws. In this context, it is unsurprising that there is significant variance between the In the Russian context, Article 29 of the Federal Constitution provides for freedom of expression, but also provides that:

Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority is forbidden.

Our research did not identify any cases in which this provision had been argued in a case of homophobic hate speech, or referenced by a court in such a case. However, hate speech may also be tackled through legislation at the federal level. The Criminal Code prohibits both the incitement of hatred or enmity and the abasement of a person’s dignity in its Article 282(1):

Incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as abasement of dignity of a person or a group of persons on the basis of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as affiliation to any social group, if these acts have been committed in public or with the use of mass media.

Article 282(2) provides for an increased penalty if such actions include violence or the threat of violence. In order to be convicted of hooliganism (“gross violation of the public order”) under the Criminal Code, it must be proved either that the violation of public order was carried out with weapons (Article 213(1)(a)) or “by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred” (Article 213(1)(b)), which may include hatred towards LGBT persons. 49 50 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 43 42 41 40 39 38 of sexualdignityand debased thehuman and gender minorities. rials includedstatements which prosecutorthe public argued were homophobic of certainmaterialstribution produced bygroupnationalist a because themate Petersburg soughtunder theLaw ajudicialban to prevent theprintinganddis Extremism” wasto applied preventCountering prosecutorpublic 2012, a homophobic speech.In St. in “On Law the where case one only identified have We Article 282(1)oftheCriminal Code. or debasedthehumandignityof,social group of“homosexuals” contrary to and homosexuals” Court held that the leaflets were aimed at inciting negative attitudes towards “Jews “homosexuals” were inferior to others duringapublicassembly inMoscow. which leaflets of suggesteddistribution the that concerned case criminal Another as thecasewas terminated by theCourt onthebasis thatitwas time-barred. whompeople consideredhe to gay.be and homosexuals”, inwhich theauthor criticisedthegranting ofstate awards to Reader:“Think, Do we give needauthoritiesthat state awards to Chechen bandits an author was charged under Article282(1)for publishinganarticleentitled instances ofopenly homophobicspeechhave becomeroutine in Russia. Prosecutions for “hate speech” against LGBT personsare extremely rare although dissemination ofextremist materials. of extremist materials andalsoallows for noticesto beissuedpreventing the affiliation. religious or national racial, social, cord, andpropaganda ofthesuperiorityorinferiority ofapersonbasedonhis as including, 282.3 to 282.1 Articles of purposes the for extremism Activities”,defines ist or activity (Articles282.1to 282.3).TheFederal Law “OnCountering Extrem community,organisation extremist an financing or in participating including may apply to actions(includingviolentactions)taken towards LGBT persons, The Criminal Code alsoprohibits anumberof“extremist offences”, which 44

островского суда районного от Санкт-Петербурга 8июня 2012года Vasilieostrovskiyof the Judgment Petersburg, DistrictCourtof St. 8 June2012 ( the expert assessmentoftheseleafletsfindingthatthey promoted the“inferiority ofhomosexuals”. The decision of the Court does not provide actual text of the leaflets and instead refers to the conclusions of районного судаМосквыот6февраля 2013 tankinskiy District Court of Moscow, 6 February 2013, No. 1-62/2013 ( The criminal case was eventually terminated on thebasis of the defendant’s insanity, Decision of the Os Центрального районногосудаЧиты от26августа2010,годаподелу№1-461/2010 Decision of the Tsentralnyi District Court of Chita, 26 August 2010, No. 1-461/2010 ( per was closeddueto beingconsidered as extremist media. lished in Russkoe Zabaikailie ( гомосексуалистам? и бандитам чеченским награды дарственные in Russianof thearticle The title is“ Russia in2015 See, for example,Russian LGBT Network, закон от 25июля2002года противодействии №114-ФЗ“О (Федеральный экстремистской деятельности”). 1 Article 114-FZ, No. 2002, July Activities”,25 Extremist Countering “On Law,Federal inter alia , 2015. 43 andexplicitly stated thatthedefendant incited hatred against, , incitement ofsocial,racial, nationalor religious dis Русское забайкайлье) Русское Задумайся, читатель: нужна ли нам власть, раздаю власть, нам ли нужна читатель: Задумайся, Monitoringand Violenceof Discrimination In BasedOnSogi , годаподелу№ 40 However, wasauthor the convictednot newspaper, which is no longer availableas thepa 38 Itprohibits thedissemination 1-62/2013). ”. The textwasof thearticle pub Постановление Останкинского Постановление ). ееи Василе- Решение 44 Постановление TheCourt ). 39 In 2010, In2010, щая госу- щая 42 The The 41 ------granted the ban but did not specify the basis upon which it concluded that the justice or complicity? contents of the publication amounted to extremist material.45

Complaints about discriminatory speech in the media may also be made by any person to the Panel for Complaints about the Media, an independent ethics body for journalists, which has found that such statements amounted to incitement to hatred. The Panel does not have remedial powers but is able to declare that media content is discriminatory. During a TV news programme in September 2014, which covered QueerFest, an annual festival in St. Peters- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: burg that promotes LGBT human rights through arts and culture, the com- mentator made several statements characterising participants in the festival as “perverts”. The organisers of the festival complained to the Panel, which concluded that the TV programme incited hatred and indicated that such hate speech is unacceptable.46

seekThese a aboveremedy examples for hate arespeech the onlyagainst examples LGBT individuals. we found where On 16 findings May 2008, of hate one ofspeech Russia’s were leading made. newspapers, By contrast, Komsomolskayawe identified over Pravda 20 unsuccessful, published an attempts interview to with Oleg Betin, at that time Governor of the Tambov Oblast. According to the article, when the journalist remarked on the need for tolerance towards sex- -

Andual minorities, throw their Mr pieces Betin down used languagewind!” Two which LGBT many rights will activists find extremely lodged a offen com- sive when he stated: “[t]olerance? Damn it! Faggots must be torn into pieces. amounted to the incitement of hatred using mass media, an offence under Arti- cleplaint 282(1) with of the the Prosecutor’s Criminal Code. office maintaining that the Governor’s statement

On 2 July 2008, the investigating authority of Tambov refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr Betin on the basis that, according to sociology, “homosexuals” are not a “classic social group” and so are not protected under Article 282(1). Additionally, the investigator considered that Mr Betin’s statement was not addressed to anyone and so could not incite hatred. The applicants appealed against this decision in the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov. However, on 6 October 2008, the District Court held that the decision of the investigator did not impinge on the rights of the applicants and therefore they had no right of appeal, a decision which was upheld by the Tambovskiy Oblast Court the following month.47 In giving its reasoning for upholding the District Court decision, the Oblast Court stated that Article 282 of the Criminal Code did not apply as “persons cannot be

45 The text of the book available online contains numerous “proofs” of the inferiority of Jews, including that they engage in immoral behaviour like LGBT relationships. 46 Lesbian gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Group “Coming Out”, Report on Monitoring Cases of Discrim- ination and Violence based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in St. Petersburg in 2014, 2014, available at: http://comingoutspb.com/publikatsii/prava-cheloveka, p. 25

(Доклад по мониторингу случаев дискриминации и насилия по признакам сексуальной ориентации и гендерной идентичности в 47 Санкт-ПетербургеDecision of the Leninskiy за 2014 District год). Court of Tambov, 2 October 2008 ( 51 ). Постановление Ленинского районного суда Тамбова от 2 июля 2008 года 52 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 52 51 50 49 48 inov’s “critical comments”were alawful expression ofhispersonalopinion. Milonov wasunsuccessful. TheCourtrejected also Mil Mr on thebasisthat it apply. a “socialgroup” accordingly, andthat, Article282 of the CriminalCode did not body preferredthird a expertopinion which stated“homosexuals” that are not ments amounted to hate speech under Article 282(1) of the CriminalCode, the investigatingcriminal body, in which they stateMr Milonov’s concludedthat were unsuccessful.Although two experts insociology provided opinions to the tute criminalproceedings and atort actionagainst MrMilonov for hate speech the internet. LGBT individuals inanumberofstatements madeinaninterview posted on and “perverts”sons as“paedophiles” andendorsed attacksthe violent against Petersburg-based St. a LGBT organisation,MilonovMr referred to LGBT per La-Sky,of office the on attack violent a following 2013, NovemberSecondly, in court onthesamebasis. him by his office. Likewise, a tort action brought against him was rejected by the Administrative Offences were denied on thebasisof the immunityafforded to ings againsthim for Code 5.62 ofthe of and discrimination under Article insult requestsSubsequent by sometoparticipants institute administrative proceed Queer Culture Festivalby them “animals”, calling “perverts”, and“sodomites”. nov insulted duringtheopeningceremonyparticipants Milo of the International Mr which in 2013 September in incident an to related these of first The islative Assembly andtheauthorofRussia’s infamous anti-propaganda law. PetersburgLeg St. the Milonov,of Vitalyfigure member political a well-known There have been anumberof unsuccessful attempts to bringcases against the satisfying one’ssexual needs”. considered asaseparate socialgroup onthebasisofsexuality or onthebasisof 53

Кировского суда районного от Санкт-Петербурга 26июня2015года поделу№2-2341/2015). Judgment Петербургского городскогосуда от17сентября2015годаподелу Decision Санкт-Петербургу от11декабря 2014года по России Комитета Следственного управления следственного Главного района Центрального ment of the InvestigatingCommittee of Russia, 11 December 2014 ( Decision Investigatorof the CentralPetersburg ofthe District of theSt. InvestigatingMain Depart see: http://www.fontanka.ru/2013/11/06/163. “perverts”,and “paedophiles” guests festival film LGBT an of guests called Milonov Mr interview his In года поделу№33-12999/2014). 2014 октябрягородскогосуда 14 Санкт-Петербургского от (Определение 33-12999/2014 no. case wasThe Judgment by Petersburg upheld onappeal thedecision of theSt. 14October 2014, City Court, 2-1617/2014) № делу по года 2014 апреля 29 от Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Кировского of theKirovskiyJudgment Petersburg, District CourtofSt. 2014, No. 2-1617/2014 29 April 5 November 2009( dorsement of thedecision of theinvestigator, Decision of theJudgeTambovskiy Court, Oblast fused to initiate supervisory review of the 6 October 2008 decision which provided the judicialen 2008 ноября 13 от суда Decision of theTambovskiy 13NovemberCourt, Oblast 2008 ( 51 The body’s decision was upheldincourt.

St 50

the

Subsequent attempts Subsequent byto oneofthevictimsattack insti Petersburg

Kirovskiy Определение cудьиТамбовскогорайонногосудаот5ноября2009

). On5May 2009, the Judge of the Presidium of the TambovCourt re Oblast City

District 49

Court 48

Court , 17

September

St ). . Petersburg 2015, No , 26 , . 3/10-332/2015 ( Определение Тамбовского районного Тамбовского Определение June 52 The tort claimagainst Mr 2015, №3/10-332/2015). отнвеи следователя Постановление No . 2-2341/2015 (Решение 2-2341/2015 . Постановление Санкт- Постановление ). (Решение 53

------.

Although not in the context of seeking a remedy for hate speech, the approach of justice or complicity? the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow to an attempt by a gay rights activist to sue a famous Russian actor for defamation is indicative of the failure of courts to recognise a clear instance of hate speech. The case related to a comment made by the actor on 8 December 2013 during a talk that he gave in Novosibirsk, which many willI would find extremelyhave them offensive, all stuffed was alive that: inside an oven. This is Sodom

and Gomorrah, and as a believer, I cannot remain indifferent to addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: this, it is a living danger to my children! I do not want my children thinking that faggots are normal. This is a gay fascism! If a man cannot choose the opposite sex for reproduction, it is a clear sign of mental abnormality, then he needs to be deprived of that right to choose.54

The defamation case was rejected on the basis that the plaintiff was not person- ally affected, but the Court also noted that it did not consider that the statement made was harsh or incited hatred.55

As discussed at the outset of this Part, discriminatory speech which reaches the level of severity such that it can be properly called hate speech should be prohibited. It is apparent from the above discussion that both the Rus- sian authorities and also the courts are refusing to recognise clear incidents of hate speech. The HRC, in its latest concluding observations on Russia’s periodic report under the ICCPR, expressed concern about reports of hate speech against LGBT individuals and activists and recommended that Russia

(…) against persons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity”.56 Even“should more clearly concerning and officially is the staterefusal that to itrecognise does not LGBT tolerate persons (…) hateas a speech“social group”, thereby excluding the LGBT community from the protections against consequences for LGBT persons in Russia, as they allow people to think that hate speechspeech againstafforded LGBT by Russian persons legislation. is permitted. Such findings have far-reaching

2.3 Discrimination in the Enjoyment of Freedom of Expression and Assembly This Part of the report overs violations of both the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. These two rights are considered together as, in many of the cases before the Russian courts, interferences with the actions of LGBT persons or activists often involve a violation of both rights simultane-

54 Judgment of the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 17 March 2014 (

Решение Тушинского районного 55 Ibid. суда Москвы от 17 марта 2014 года). 53 56 See above, note 27. 54 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 59 58 57 Article 11(2)similarly provides that: accordance withArticle21: and Article11(1) of theECHRprovide for the right ofpeacefulassembly. In similar terms to theright to freedom of expression. Both Article21 of the ICCPR The rightto freedom ofassembly isguaranteed,restrictions and permitted, on by theright to freedom ofexpression. must bestrictly necessary,speech which andthat shocks or offends is protected sufficient”. reasonsthe forward put bythe State torestrictionthe support are “relevantand restriction was proportionate to theaimsought to beachieved and alsowhether ocraticsociety. one of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 10(2); and necessary in a dem of pursuance in law; by prescribed is: restriction the that namely 10(2), Article freedom of expression under theECHR must meettherequirements setoutin proportionate. and necessary legitimate and 19(3); the Article in of listed aims one of pursuance in law; by prescribed are: they when only dom of expression provided by Article19(2) are permitted under Article 19(3) dom of expression to bemadeinlimited circumstances. Restrictions on thefree and by Article10(1) provisionsof theECHR.Both allow for restrictions to free The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article19(2) of theICCPR the basisofideasthatthey may express duringthesemarches. ously. For example,activists are often denied the right to stagepride marches on 60

Human Rights Committee, above, note 29. See, for example, 9 February and 2012,Paras 49and50. 25–28; Paras 1994, September 23 15890/89, No. 50. Seealso, The Sunday Times vTheUnited Kingdom (No 2) Sweden See, 48–49; Paras 29, note above, See See, HumanRights Committee, above, note 29,Para 22. or morals or for the protection oftheand freedoms rights of others. for the preventiondisorderof for orcrime, theprotection healthof inthecratic interests orpublic safety, society national security of than such asare prescribed by law and are necessary inademo No restrictions shall be placed onthe exercise oftheseother rights of others. lic health ormorals orthe protection ofthe rightsandfreedoms or publicsafety, publicorder(ordre thepublic), protection ofpub inthe inademocratic interestsessary society ofnationalsecurity than those imposedinconformity with the lawandwhich are nec No restrictions maybeplaced onthe exercise ofthis rightother , ApplicationNo.1813/07,9February 2012,Paras 49,50. 59 BoththeHRC and theECtHRhaveany madeitclearthat restrictions Handyside v UnitedHandyside v Kingdom, 58 Handyside v United Kingdom This last requirement This last requiresexamination an of whether the Jersild vDenmark, above,note and 60 , Application No. , Application13166/87, 26 November 1991 Para Vejdeland and Others vSweden

29, Paras 48–49; Paras 29, Vejdeland v Sweden above,

note 35, Paras 25–28; and 25–28; Paras 35, note Jersild v Denmark,Jersild v , Application No. 1813/07, , Application , above, note 29. See also, 57 Restrictions of Application Vejdeland v ------

Both provisions require that restrictions imposed on the right of peaceful assem- justice or complicity? bly are necessary and proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved.61 As with the right to freedom of expression, both the HRC and the ECtHR have repeatedly reiterated the importance of protecting the right to freedom of assembly and limiting any restrictions on it. The ECtHR has spoken of the positive obligations of states to protect the right to peaceful assembly:

[A]lthough individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to

those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position (…) Genuine and effective respect for freedom of association and assembly cannot be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere; a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the purpose of Article 11 nor with that of the Convention in general. There may thus be positive obligations to secure the effective enjoyment of these freedoms. This obligation is of particular importance for persons holding unpopular views or belonging to minorities, because they are more vulnerable to victimisation.62

In Russia, the Federal Constitution provides for protection of both the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. Article 29(1) provides that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech.” Article 29(4) further provides that “Everyone shall have the right to seek, get, transfer, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means.” Article 31 provides for a right to peaceful assembly in the following terms:

Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.

In accordance with Article 55(3) of the Federal Constitution, both the right to freedom of expression and assembly:

[M]ay be restricted by the federal law only to the extent required for the protection of the fundamentals of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and lawful interests of other persons, for ensuring the defence of the country and the security of the state.

Despite these guarantees of Constitutional rights aligning with those set out in international and European human rights law, in practice, these rights are severely restricted for LGBT persons and activists in Russia. These restrictions,

61 See, for example, Christian Democratic People’s Party v Moldova, Application no. 28793/02, 14 February Alekseyev v Russia, Application No. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, 21 October 2010, Sergey Praded v Belarus, Communication No. 2029/2011, UN2006, Doc. Para CCPR/C/112/D/2029/2011, 70; 10 October 2014, Paras 7.4 and 7.5. Paras 69 and 70; and Human Rights Committee, 55 62 Bączkowski and Others v Poland,

Application No. 1543/06, 3 May 2007, Paras 63–64. 56 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 Kostroma, among minors”. propagandalic actionsaimedat ofhomosexuality(sodomy andlesbianism) tection of Morals andHealthof Children intheRyazan Region” prohibited “pub Pro “On Law 2006 Its Oblast. Ryazan the in introduced was law such first The which anumberofassemblieshave beenprevented from goingahead. lowed bythe federalat ban a level in 2013. The laws alsoprovide the basisupon or “propagandaof non-traditional sexual relationships”. These laws were fol the Russian Federation adoptinglaws “propagandabanning of homosexuality” expression of LGBT individuals by Russian legislatures, with thirteen regions of Since 2006, there hasbeenanincreasingly widespreadon thefreedom attack of 2.3.1 of bothinternational andEuropean humanrights law. rightlythe internationalboth criticised at and European levelas clearviolations such asthose imposed on thebasisofanti-propagandalaws, have been 71

Code of Administrative Offences”, 30 November 2013, No. 196 (Закон Калининградской области от области Калининградской (Закон 196 No. 2013, November Offences”,30 Administrative of Code области”). Владимирской во детей здоровья и нравственности защите по мерах “О области Владимирской Закона 5 статью в изменения внесении г. “О 2012 145-ОЗ ноября № 13 от области Владимирской (Закон 145-OZregion”, No. Vladimir 2012, Novemberthe 13 in children of health and morals of tection правонарушениях административных “Об Самарской натерритории области”). Самарской области от 10 июля 2012 г. № 75-ГД “О внесении изменений в Закон Самарской области Новосибирской области”). Новосибирской области от 14 июня 2012 г. № 226-ОЗ “О внесении изменений в отдельные законы защиты части психическое, духовное инравственноеразвитие”). интеллектуальное, в физическое, их области на влияющих Магаданской негативно факторов, законы от отдельные несовершеннолетних в изменений внесении № г. 2012 “О июня 9 1507-ОЗ от области Магаданской (Закон 1507-OZ No. 2012, June development”,9 moral tion of minors from thefactors negativelythat affect their physical, intellectual,spiritual and mental, области” иКодекс Костромской правонарушениях”). областиобадминистративных Костромскойв ребенка прав гарантиях “О Костромскойобласти Закон в изменений внесении “О г.2012 193-5-ЗКО № февраля 193-5-ZKO,15 No. отFebruary Костромской2012, области 15 (Закон Rights intheKostroma Region andtheCode of Administrative Offences of the Kostroma Region”, вАрхангельскойздоровья детей области”). и нравственности защите по мерах отдельных “Об внесении закон “О областной в 336-24-ОЗ дополнения и № г.изменений 2011 сентября 30 от области Архангельской (Закон 336-24-OZ No. Protection ofMoralsof Childrenand theHealth in theArkhangelskRegion”, 30September 2011, в Рязанской Области”, от 3апреля2006года, №41-ОЗ).статья4). детей нравственности и здоровья защите “О области Рязанской ((Закон 4 Article 41-OZ, No. 2006, See Part 2.3.2. KaliningradLaw, Oblast Amendments to “On theLawof theKaliningrad region “Kaliningrad Region Law, Vladimir Oblast Amendments to “On Article5oftheLawof Vladimirregion onmeasures for thepro (Закон 75-GD No. 2012, JulyOblast”, Samara10 the in offencesadministrative Law, “On Oblast Samara (Закон 226-OZ No. 2012, June 14 laws”, Oblast Novosibirsk amending “On Law, Oblast Novosibirsk MagadanLaw, Oblast Amendments to “On Certain Laws of the Magadan region in terms of the protec KostromaLaw, Oblast Amendments to“On theLawof theKostroma Region onGuarantees ofChild ArkhangelskLaw,Oblast Introducing “On AmendmentsandAdditions to theRegionalLaw for the RyazanLaw, Oblast the protection “On ofchildren’s healthandmoralityin theRyazan Oblast”, 3April Relationships” Overview ofLaws Propaganda Banning of“Non-Traditional Sexual 66 Magadan, 64 From 2011, similar laws were introduced in Arkhangelsk, 67

Novosibirsk, 68 Samara, 69 Vladimir, 63

70 Kaliningrad 71 and 65 - - - - -

Sverdlovsk Oblasts,72 the Krasnodar Region,73 Bashkiria,74 Dagestan75 and St. justice or complicity? Petersburg.76 A number of the regional laws banned not only “propaganda about homosexuality”, but also about “bisexual relationships” and “transsexualism”. In all cases, the laws prohibited “propaganda” among minors.77 In the majority of the regions, a violation of the legal prohibition was considered as an administrative

Theoffence federal punishable law, which by a followedfine, both in for 2013, individuals made amendmentsand for legal entities. to three pre-exist- 78 ing laws. Firstly, it amended the Law “On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: Child in the Russian Federation”, to include a provision according to which, in order to “protect children from information, propaganda and agitation harmful to their health, moral and spiritual development”, measures must be taken to protect them from propaganda relating to “non-traditional sexual relationships”.79 Secondly, it amended the Law “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development” to include a prohibition on the dissemination of information to children (those under 18) that “denies family values, promotes non-traditional sexual relationships and develops disrespect for parents and (or) other members of the family”.80

30 января 2013 г. № 196, “О внесении дополнений в Закон Калининградской области “Кодекс 72 КалининградскойSverdlovsk Oblast Law, области “On amendments об административных to the regional правонарушениях”). law on protection of rights of the child”, 17 Oc-

tober 2013, No. 96-OZ (Закон Свердловской области от 17 октября 2013, г. № 96-ОЗ, О внесении 73 измененийKrasnodar Kray в Областной Law, “On закон Amendments “О защите to правCertain ребенка”). Legislative Acts of the Krasnodar Territory in the strengthening of the protection of health and spiritual and moral development of children”, 3 July 2012,

No. 2535-KZ (Закон Краснодарского края от 3 июля 2012 г. № 2535-КЗ, “О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Краснодарского края в части усиления защиты здоровья и 74 духовно-нравственногоLaw of the Republic of Bashkortostan, развития детей”). “On Amending the Law of the Republic of Bashkortostan on Ba-

sic Guarantees of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Bashkortostan”, 23 July 2012, No. 581-Z (Закон Республики Башкортостан от 23 июля 2012, г. № 581-З, “О внесении изменения в Закон Республики 75 БашкортостанLaw of the Republic “Об основныхof Dagestan, гарантиях “On Amendments прав ребенка to the вLaw Республике of the Republic Башкортостан”). of Dagestan on Protection

of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Dagestan”, 19 March 2014, No. 17 (Закон Республики Дагестан от 19 марта 2014 г. № 17 “О внесении изменений в Закон Республики Дагестан “О защите прав 76 ребенкаLaw of St. в РеспубликеPetersburg, Дагестан”).“On Amendments to the Law of St. Petersburg on Administrative Offences in

St. Petersburg”, 7 March 2012, No. 108-18 (Закон Санкт-Петербурга от 7 марта 2012 г. № 108-18, “О внесении изменений в Закон Санкт-Петербурга “Об административных правонарушениях в 77 Санкт-Петербурге”).The Kaliningrad Region Code of Administrative Offences was later amended to extend the reach of propo- ganda provisions to adults. See below p. 58. 78 Federal Law “On Amending Article 5 of the Federal Law “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development” and certain legislative acts in order to protect children from the in-

formation propandasing the denial of family values”, 29 June 2013, No. 135-FZ (Федеральный закон от 29 июня 2013 года № 135-ФЗ “О внесении изменений в статью 5 Федерального закона “О защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию” и отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в целях защиты детей от информации, пропагандирующей отрицание 79 традиционныхFederal Law, “On семейных Basic Guarantees ценностей”). of the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation”, 24 July 1998,

No. 124-FZ, Article 14(1) (Федеральный закон от 24 июля 1998 года, № 124-ФЗ, “Об основных 80 гарантияхFederal Law, прав “On ребенка protection в Российской of children Федерации”). from information harmful to their health and development”, 57

29 December 2010, No. 436-FZ, Article 5(2)(4) (Федеральный закон от 29 декабря 2010 года, № 436- ФЗ “О защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию”). 58 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST in order to avoidliability. double However, inKaliningrad theCode of the Oblast, After theadoptionof federallaw, number ofregional a laws were repealed tional sexual relationships amongminors”: trative Offences, providing administrativefor liability “propaganda of non-tradi bitions, FederalLaw No. 135-FZ introduced Article 6.21 of theCode of Adminis Thirdly, on29 June2013, in order to ensure compliance with theabove prohi 81

тивных правонарушениях), Article6.21. Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences (Кодекс Российской Федерации об администра- об (КодексAdministrative Федерации РоссийскойOffences of FederationCode Russian 1. Propaganda1. non-traditional of sexual relationships among trative deportation from the Russian Federation. Federation oradministrative arrest for uptodays with 15 adminis roubles100,000 with administrative deportation from the Russian offencebypunishable be shall administrative– an to50,000 of fine the “Internet” unless network), these actionsconstitute acriminal (or) information andtelecommunications (including networks a statelessnational or eign personwiththe theof use media and Actions4. envisagedthisof part 1 in article, committed by afor administrative deportation from the Russian Federation. Russian Federation oradministrative arrest for upto dayswith 15 toof 4,000 roubles 5,000 with administrative deportation from the fine administrative an by punishable be shall – offence criminal a national or astatelesseign unless person, these actionsconstitute Actions3. envisagedthisof part 1 in article, committed by afor or administrative for upto suspensionoftheir 90days. activity 100,000 to 200,000roubles; for legal entities from 1,000,000roubles citizens in the amount of 50,000 to 100,000 roubles; on officials from on fine administrative an by punishable be shall – offence criminal (including the “Internet” unless network), these actionsconstitute a theof information(or) and media telecommunicationsand networks 2. Actions envisaged inpart1ofthis article, committed with the use for upto 90days. bles ifperpetrated by alegal entity, orasuspension ofitsactivity by a public official; or of between 800,000 roubles to 1,000,000 rou roubles 40,000 bles; or ofbetween toroubles 50,000 ifperpetrated rou 5,000 to roubles 4,000 between of: fine administrative an by unless such actsconstitute acriminaloffence –shall be punishable tional sexual relationships raisinginterest such in relationships, sexual relationships,informationor imposing non-tradi about thesenting social equivalence oftraditional and non-traditional attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships, misrepre formingnon-traditional sexual conceptions inminors,raising the theminors in forminformationdissemination of of aimedat 81 ------Kaliningrad Oblast of Administrative Offences was retained and its scope was justice or complicity? also extended to encompass “propaganda” directed at adults.82

2.3.2 Application of the Laws Banning “Propaganda of Non-Traditional Sexual Relationships” at the Regional Level

Although a number of the regional propaganda laws have now been repealed, the approach of the courts is nonetheless discussed in this Part as it demonstrates the ongoing reluctance of the Russian courts to recognise that such laws addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: are blatantly discriminatory. These cases also demonstrate the courts’ failure to strictly regulate the restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly that have been imposed through the application of these laws. i. The Ryazan Oblast region to introduce the ban on “propaganda of homosexuality” among minors. SectionAs noted 3.10 above, of the on Ryazan 15 June Oblast 2006, Law the on Ryazan Administrative Oblast became Offences the provided first Russian that “public actions aimed at propaganda of homosexuality (sexual acts between ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 roubles”.83 men or lesbianism) among minors shall be punished with an administrative fine On 30 March 2009, two LGBT rights activists, Irina Fedotova and Nikolay Bayev, displayed posters that declared “homosexuality is normal”84 and “I am proud of my homosexuality”85 near a secondary school building in Ryazan, with the intention of promoting tolerance towards gay and lesbian individuals. On 6 April 2009, they were convicted by a justice of the peace of an administrative offence under section 3.10 for having displayed the posters.86

The activists appealed the conviction arguing that it breached Articles 29 (freedom of expression) and 19 (equality) of the Federal Constitution. They con- and impinged their right to express their views to encourage acceptance of gay people,tended and that their the termright “propagandato equality regardless of homosexuality” of their sexual was orientation. insufficiently Moreo clear- ver, they argued that Article 55(3) of the Federal Constitution required any limitation of their rights to freedom of expression and equality to be made through federal (as opposed to regional) law.87

Law of the Kaliningrad Oblast, 20 February 2014, No. 300 (Закон Калинградской области от 20 февраля 83 2014 года, № 300). Ryazan Oblast Law on Administrative Offences, Section 3.10 (статья 3.10 Закона Рязанской области 84 “Об административных правонарушениях”). 85 The original text in Russian read as follows: “Гомосексуализм – это нормально”. 86 TheJudgment original of textthe Justice in Russian of the read Peace as follows: of the Judicial “Я горжусь District своей No. 18гомосексуальностью”. of the Oktyabrskiy District of Ryazan, 6

April 2009 (Постановление мирового судьия судебного участка № 18 Октябрьского района Рязани 87 отAppeal 6 апреля against 2009 the года). judgment of the Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 18 of the Oktyabrskiy 59 District of Ryazan, 6 April 2009. 60 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 91 90 89 88 sexuality” asthe: or moraldevelopment”.and spiritual ically by protectingchildren from propagandawhich wouldharm their“health Ryazan legislature Oblast acted with the aimof protecting these values, specif wasresponsibilityjoint a oftheRussian Federationand regions, the andthat tection offamily, childhood and motherhoodtheir traditional “in understanding” Court alsodismissed The Constitutional the case. munity, leaving themexposed to ariskofabuse. prohibition on“homosexualpropaganda” stigmatised thegay com lesbian and informationon distributing regarding same-sexarguedorientation and the that restrictiontherewasno that noted They choice. a not characteristicinnate – an their on Article 19 and 29 rightsconstitutional caused by restrictionSexual theban. orientation was the for justification objective an constitute not could and They argued that the assertion that “homosexuality” is immoral was insufficient Fedotova andBayevthe decision appealed to theRussian Court. Constitutional other people”. basis oftheconstitutionalorder, morality, health,rights andlawful interests of constituted alegitimate limitationofrights necessary“for theprotection ofthe hold thatsection3.10oftheregional law didnotoffend theConstitution asit Ryazan OblastLaw formed partoffederal law, theDistrictCourt went onto with it.”ance Having thereforerestrictionsthe established provided for thein istrative offences ofsubjectstheRussian Federation adopted incompli tion onadministrative offences consistsofthisCode andthelaws onadmin 1.1 ofthefederal Code ofAdministrative Offences, which states that“legisla Law onAdministrative Offences formed partoffederal law pursuantto Article made through afederal law. However, theCourt found thattheRyazan Oblast equality mustcomply withArticle55(3)oftheFederal Constitutionandbe Court agreed thatany limitationontherights offreedom ofexpression and On 14May 2009,theOktyabrsky DistrictCourt rejected theirappeal. 93 92

Ibid Ibid Консти- (Определение 151-O-O Судатуционного Российской ФедерацииотNo. 19января2011года, №151-О-О). 2010, January 19 Russia, of Court Constitutional the of Decision Ibid Ibid. ского суда районного Рязаниот 14мая2009года поделу, №12-46/2009). Judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ryazan, 14 May 2009, No. 12-46/2009 (Решение Октябрь- . . . assess such information. persons whoare tounable due theirage to independentlycritically of traditional and non-traditional family relationships – among bying creatinga deformed understandingtheof social equivalence theharming of health moralor includ andspiritualdevelopment, [T]argeted anduncontrolled disseminationofinformation capable 89

93 92 The Court defined “propaganda of homo 90 91 TheCourtfoundthe pro that - 88 The ------

justice or complicity? violate the Article 29 rights to freedom of thought and freedom to freely dissem- inateOn this information. basis, the Court The Courtconcluded did not that address the prohibition the Article was 19 justified equality and argument did not in any detail. Instead it noted, in a summary fashion, that section 4 of the Ryazan Oblast Law “On the protection of children’s health and morality in the Ryazan Oblast” and section 3.10 of the Ryazan Oblast Law on Administrative Offences did not set forth any measures aimed at the prohibition of “homosexuality” or

94 allow state authorities to take excessive actions. addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: at its official condemnation, had no discriminatory characteristics and did not The failure of the Russian courts in this case to protect the rights of the activists with the HRC arguing that her rights to freedom of expression and freedom from discriminationwas confirmed afterunder one the of ICCPR the activists, (Articles Irina 19(2) Fedotova, and 26 lodged respectively) a communication had been violated by the decisions of the justice of the peace and the Constitutional Court, and also alleged that the provisions of the Ryazan law were discriminatory. On 31

Article 19(2) and 26 of the ICCPR. The HRC noted that section 3.10 was aimed only atOctober the “propaganda 2012, the HRC of homosexuality” adopted its views, and notfinding at the a violationpropaganda of her of heterosexual rights under- ity or sexuality more broadly, later referring to it as “ambiguous and discriminatory”. 95 It noted that although the Russian Federation invoked the aims of protecting the health, morals and rights of minors, it advanced no reasonable and objective criteria to justify imposing a ban on “propaganda of homosexuality” but not a ban on sexuality more broadly.96 The HRC went on to note that the Russian Federation had not demonstrated why it was necessary, in order to achieve one of the legitimate aims in Article 19(3), to restrict freedom of expression in this case, even if Fedotova had intended to engage children in a discussion about “homosexuality”.

Following the adoption of the views of the HRC, the Presidium of the Ryazan Oblast Court accepted Ms Fedotova’s application to set aside the decision of the justice of the peace.97 non-traditional sexual relationships among minors” under federal law (presumably in order to identify The the Court elements referred of unlawful to the definitionpropaganda). of “propaganda98 It stated that of the prohibition did not affect the “right to receive and impart information of a general, neutral content about non-traditional sexual relationships or the holding of public events (…) without imposing such attitudes on minors”99 and held that the justice of the peace had not properly assessed whether Ms Fedotova’s actions constituted propaganda. In reaching its decision, the Presidium neither referred to the views of the HRC nor considered the discrimination argument,

94 Ibid. 95 Human Rights Committee, Irina Fedotova v Russian Federation, Communication No. 1932/2010, UN Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010, 19 November 2012, Paras 10.5 and 10.8. 96 Ibid., Para 10.6. 97

Judgment of the Ryazan Oblast Court, 26 September 2013, No. 4A-144/2013 (Решение Рязанского 98 See above, note 81. областного суда от 26 сентября 2013 года, по делу № 4A-144/2013). 61 99 See above, note 97. 62 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 100 notedLawthe Model that Protectionthe “On ofChildren from Information “propaganda”,Court of the definition the in clarity of lack the about argument understanding of the values of family, motherhood and childhood. relationships”marital ditional was well understood inlighttraditionalof the non-tra and “traditional term the that considered Court The concepts. defined The City Courtrejectedthe terms thecase,notingthat inthelawwere well take priority over Russian legislationonadministrative liability. Code of Administrative Offences, which declaresinternational that legal norms addition, arguedComing Out section that 7.1 violated Article 1.1 of the federal “transgenderism”, “traditional andnon-traditional(“sodomy”,relationships”). marital “bisexuality”, In it within used terms the of definitions official of lack arguing section 7.1violatedthat federalof clarity,because ofitslack legislation Court andthe City Petersburg St. the with action an filed Out, Coming (NGO), its entryintoOn force,Petersburg-based St. non-governmentalorganisation May 2010to includeanewsection7.1,asfollows: Petersburgamendment oftheSt. Region Law onAdministrative Offences of 31 Petersburg’sSt. anti-propaganda law was passed on 7March 2012 through the Petersburgii. St. was sufficient ground for reversing its decision and did not prejudice her guilt. case the of circumstancesfactual the assess to court instance first the failureof the that held Court Supreme The findings. HRC the of light in and propaganda the caseshouldhaveshe beendiscontinued had notcommittedon thebasisthat appealed this decision to the Supreme who rejected Court, her argument that further administrative proceedings as timebarred. MsFedotova unsuccessfully whichFedotova Ms raised reference with to thoseviews. TheCourtdiscontinued 101

городского суда от 24мая2012года, поделу№3-97/12). Суда Российской Федерацииот 6декабря2013года, поделу№6-АД13-1). Judgment of the St. Petersburg City Court, 24 May 2012, No. 3-97/12 (РешениеMayPetersburg3-97/12 24 No. Санкт-Петербургского2012, St. Court, the City of Judgment Верховного (Определение 6-AD13-1 No. 2013, December 6 Russia, of Court Supreme the of Decision non-traditional marital relationships are sociallyequal. in particularby formingwarped perceptions thattraditional and damage to the health,moral andspiritualdevelopment ofminors, uncontrolled informationdissemination of capablecausing of aimedatpurposefuland understood, inthis asactivity Section, lesbianism, bisexuality ortransgenderism amongminorsshall be note: publicactionsaimedatpropagandaExplanatory ofsodomy, 500,000 ifperpetrated by alegal entity. RUB and 250,000 RUB between of or official; public a by petrated per if roubles 50,000 RUB of or 5,000; RUB of fine administrative ortransgenderismuality amongminorsshall be punishableby an propagandaPublic actionsaimedat sodomy, of lesbianism, bisex 101 Asto the - - 100 - justice or complicity? that may be referred to: Harmful to their Health and Development” provides a definition of propaganda [T]he activities of individuals and (or) legal entities for the dissemination of information aimed at creating in the minds of children attitudes and (or) behavioural patterns, or having the purpose to encourage or incite persons to whom it is addressed, to commit any action or to refrain from its commission.102 addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: The Court went on to note that the terms “lesbianism”, “bisexuality”, and “transgenderism” are included in the full name of the applicant organisation and therefore did not accept the argument that there was any arbitrary uncertainty in relation to these concepts.103

The Court did not accept the applicant organisation’s argument that the contested law was aimed at creating negative and intolerant attitudes among the public, including among minors, towards individuals on the grounds of their sexual orientation. In the Court’s view, the law did not contain any measures aimed but rather aimed at adopting measures to protect children from information and propagandaat the prohibition, that could or the harm official their condemnation, moral and spiritual of “homosexual development, relationships”, in connection with which administrative responsibility was reasonably established.104

Finally, the Court dismissed the argument that the law was incompatible with international human rights standards.

The Court considers that the contested provision in no way under- mines the citizens’ right to respect for private and family life, does not contain any evidence of discrimination, and therefore, does not limit the applicant organisation’s right to carry out its activities in accordance with its statute.

Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, along with the proclamation of the right of everyone to freedom of expression, comes from the fact that the exercise of this freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities and may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed in law and are necessary in a democratic society, including for the protection of health or morals.

102 Model Law, “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Develop- ment”, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Member States to the Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS), Decision of 3 December 2009, No. 33-15 (

Модельный закон о защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию, Принят на тридцать Inter-Parliamentaryтретьем пленарном Assembly заседании of the CIS Межпарламентской for adoption at local Ассамблеи level. государств-участников СНГ Постановлением от 3 декабря 2009 года, № 33-15). A model law is a recommendation issued by the 103 See above, note 101. 63 104 Ibid. 64 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 109 108 107 106 105 grounds oftheirsexual orientation,theConstitutionalCourtstated that: which acknowledgedRussian that lawprotected people from discrimination on non-heterosexual orientation and was arbitrarily vague. In an important finding the lawthat undermined human dignity, discriminated against persons of beforeIn his challenge theRussian MrAlekseyevCourt, Constitutional argued itself unsuccessfully. are.”ballet banner read:holding a “Homosexualityis notaperversion. Grass hockey andice 12 April2012, when hestood in front of Administrative Offences. victed by Petersburg ajusticeof the peaceunder section 7.1 of the St. Law on well-knownA Russian LGBT rights activist,Nikolai Alekseyev, was con also Supreme Courtonthesamegrounds. Petersburg of theSt. The judgment City Courtwas byon appeal upheld the

001/14-5). (Определе 001/14-5 were alsoultimately Petersburg discontinued. Decision of the St. 16 October Statutory 2014, No. Court, his conviction. Proceedings he broughtthe law challenging itself before Petersburg theSt. Statutory Court On 6June2012, theSmolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed Mr Alekseyev’sagainst appeal This was awell-known quote from afamous actress from Soviet times. 5-444/2012-208). № делу по года, 2012 мая 5 от Санкт-Петербурга 208 № судьиучастка мирового (Постановление Ibid Верховного СудаРоссийскойФедерацииот3октября2012года поделу№78-АПГ12-16 ( 78-АПГ12-16 No. 2012, Federation,OctoberRussian 3 the of Court Supreme of Decision Judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Circuit No. 208 of St Petersburg, 5 May 2012, No. 5-444/2012-208 . minors isobjectively justified. administrative responsibility for the protection among ofmorality thisIn connection, the rulesadoption of establishing aimedat Rights,different treatmentbased exclusively onsexual orientation Articleimplies, 14 asinterpreted by theEuropean CourtHuman of as well as by the European Convention onHumanRights, which and freedoms rights of man andcitizen of (Articleequality 19(2)), bythe Constitution theof Russian Federation,which guarantees [A]ll persons irrespective oftheir sexual orientation are protected because oftheir age. who are notableto critically assess such information independently status ofsexual minorities, without imposingattitudes onminors prescribedby law, including debatespublic open theabout social ditional sexual relationships, orto holdpublicevents inthe manner and impartinformation ofageneral, neutral content aboutnon-tra transgenderismdoes not prevent the realisationtheof toright receive [P]rohibitionpropaganda of sodomy,of lesbianism, bisexuality, and 108 MrAlekseyev went ontoboth his conviction challenge andthelaw и Утвоо уа ак-еебра т 6 кяр 21 гд, о еу № делу по года, 2014 октября 16 от Санкт-Петербурга суда Уставного ние 109

107 106 His conviction inMay 2012, related to anincidenton 105 TheSupreme Court noted thatthe:

the St. Petersburgthe St. CityAdministration Определение - ). - is discriminatory (Judgement of the 21 October 2010, case Alek- justice or complicity? seyev v Russia).110

However, the Court went on to state that this did not exclude limiting the realisation of rights in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others in accordance with Articles 17(3)111 and 55(3) of the Federal Constitution. This was a matter of balancing competing constitutional values. The Court therefore upheld the law as constitutional.112 addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: The St. Petersburg law was repealed when the federal law banning propaganda came into force. iii. The Arkhangelsk Oblast

The Arkhangelsk Oblast law prohibiting public actions aimed at “propaganda of homosexuality” among minors was passed on 30 September 2011,113 and on 21 November 2011 the regional law on administrative offenses was amended to include liability for such actions.114

In November 2011, LGBT rights activists tried to hold a public assembly to protest against this law and to distribute information about discrimination against LGBT minors and which explained the nature of being LGBT. However, all of the 11 events proposed for the assemblies in the centre of Arkhangelsk were banned by the Arkhangelsk City authorities on the basis of the law against “propaganda of homosexuality”. In particular, the authorities noted that the proposed loca- tions of the events covered educational facilities for children and therefore an assembly on Sunday during day time would violate the law.115 The decision was upheld by the Oktyabrskiy District Court.116

In December 2011, LGBT activists were denied permission to hold assemblies with slogans stating, “There are no less gays and lesbians among children than among adults”. The assemblies were to be held in front of a children’s library and

110 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia, 24 October 2013, No. 1718-O

decision referenced by the Court here related not to these proceedings, but (Определение to attempts to Конститу-hold pride marches.ционного Суда Российской Федерации от, 24 октября 2013 года, № 1718-О). The European Court 111 Article 17(3) of the Federal Consitution provides that, “[t]he exercise of rights and liberties of a human being and citizen may not violate the rights and liberties of other persons.” 112 See above, note 110. 113 See above, note 65. 114 Ibid. 115 GayRussia, “Mayor of Arkhangelsk banned gay pickets near children’s institutions, Arkhangelsk court

began to consider complaints about the ban of gay events”, 15 December 2011 (Мэрия Архангельска- sia/3269.запретила гей-пикеты около детских учреждений, архангельский суд приступил к рассмотрению жалоб на запрет ранее заявленных гей-мероприятий), available at: http://www.gayrussia.eu/rus 116 65 Judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, 4 April 2012 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда Архангельска от 4 апреля 2012 года). 66 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 120 119 118 117 protecting children’s rights. norms international with complied law the and clear sufficiently were law the Petersburg. Petersburgas the one of the St. City Court with regard to the similar law inSt. transphobia.The decision of theCourtwas largely basedonthe same grounds ing tolerantattitudes towards minorities, and atovercoming homophobia and to comply withthelaw whendiscussions holdingeducational creataimed at universitytime a professor,argued wasit that for impossible her to foresee how Petersburg.the samegrounds asinSt. the head of the ArkhangelskLGBT NGO Rakurs the regionalchallenging law on 22 MayOn 2012, theArkhangelskCourt dismissedbroughtaction an Oblast by that thebanonassemblieswas discrimination. dismissed the activists’ argumentstheir actionswerethat notpropagandaand The activists were convictedadministrative ofan offenceThe Court by theCourt. library. They displayed bannerswiththefollowing slogans: On 11 January 2012, LGBT activists protested in front of the regional children’s were endorsedby thecourts. moreassemblies, again public by reference to theregionallaw. These decisions January 2012, theArkhangelskCity authoritiesdenied permission to holdtwo basis oftheregionallaw, withthedecisions againupheld incourt. being the natureabout of sexualorientation. Again, permissions were denied on the studies scientific international and minors LGBT against discrimination about centreart an for children andtheactivists intended to distribute information 121

See above, note 101. областного суда от22мая2012годаподелу№3-0025) 22 May Judgment oftheArkhangelskCourt, Oblast 2012, No. 3-0025 ( округа Октябрьского 6 № города Архангельска от 2012года). 3февраля участка судебного судьи мирового (Постановление 2012 February 3 Verdict ofthe JusticeofthePeace ofJudicial District No. 6of the Oktyabrskiy District of Arkhangelsk, See above, note 5. Ibid . to both children andadults!” “Homosexuality –isahealthy form ofsexuality. Thisshouldbeknown become Homosexuality isnormal.” great. on theRights theof Child. Great people were gay too. Gayscan also “Children haveto aright knowof the 13 by Conventionof Art. virtue ties are child-killers. Homosexuality isgood!” steps because ofthe lack ofinformation abouttheir nature. Depu teenagers. of suicides for world Among them, ahuge proportion are homosexuals. Theytake such the in place first holds “Russia 121 In particular, In the legalCourt held that the Oblast terms usedin 118 120 In addition, theheadofRakurs, In that at ). 119

Определение Архангельского Определение - 117 In - The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Oblast Court on 15 August 2012.122 justice or complicity? The Court disagreed with the applicant that the contested law violated the principle of legal certainty due to the lack of clarity of the notions “propaganda” and “homosexuality”, stating that these terms are common. The Court noted that the Model Law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to their 123

WithHealth reference and Development” to the ECtHR provided judgment a definition in Alekseyev of propaganda. v Russia,124 the Supreme

Court further emphasised that the mere mentioning of “homosexuality” is not addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: “negative”.125 The Court held that the contested law did not prohibit actions which should be allowed in accordance with Alekseyev v Russia:

[P]rohibition of propaganda of homosexuality does not prevent the realisation of the right to receive and impart information of a general, neutral content about non-traditional sexual relations, or to hold public events in the manner prescribed by law, including open public debates about the social status of sexual minorities, without imposing attitudes on minors who are not able to critically assess such information independently because of their age.126

- aganda of homosexuality” means “active public actions (…) aimed at forming anAccordingly, attractive theimage Court of non-traditionalconcluded that sexualthe law orientation, was sufficiently and a clear distorted as “prop perception of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional marital relations.” The Court went on to state that the contents of the contested law did not allow for any other interpretation.127

Referring to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Supreme Court concluded that the contested law was in line with the international obligations of Russia. The Court explained that:

[F]ree development of a child, as an individual lacking sufficient physical and mental maturity, should be secured, including by establishing restrictions on interference with his private life, which may include propaganda, as a public, active imposition of homosexuality and information about it, the contents of which could have a negative impact on the formation of the personality of the child, including in relation to his sexual identity, and generate interest in non-traditional sexual relationships which is not objectively based

122 See above, note 102. Decision of the Supreme Court of Russia, 15 August 2012, No. 1-АПГ12-11 (Определение Верховного 123 СудаIbid. Российской Федерации от 15 августа 2012 года по делу № 1-АПГ12-11). 124 See above, note 99. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 67 127 Ibid. 68 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 130 129 128 under theoblastlaw. sentedmarchthe planned that wouldviolate theprohibition ofpropaganda dren’s library. to thegay pride march,regardwith not but to themeetingsinfrontof thechil wasjudgment reversedby on appeal theKostromaregardCourt with Oblast court. instance first the by upheld was permission for denial with reference to the regional law against “propaganda of homosexuality”. The administration city the by denied were assemblies five all hold to permissions sexual orientation, andto drawattention to discrimination againstLGBT children.of The nature the about minors to information scientific provide to aiming ing, “There are no less gays andlesbians amongchildren thanamongadults”, sexuality”,twoand front assembliesin of thechildren’s library slogans with say city administrationto condemn theregionallaw against “propaganda of homo toalso planned holdtwo meetingsinfront oftheregionallegislature andthe erance andrespect for the rights andfreedoms of LGBT persons in Russia. They totion oftheir plans holdagay pride march inthecitycentre insupportoftol March12 LGBTOn 2012, rightsactivists Kostromathe notified administraCity among minors.Thelaw provided for administrative liabilityfor suchactions. of homosexuality (sodomy andlesbianism),bisexuality andtransgenderism” The Kostroma OblastLaw, adopted on15February 2012,prohibited “propaganda iv. TheKostroma Oblast homosexuality” amongminorshasremained inforce. repealed.However, the law prohibiting “propagandaactions aimedat public of The Arkhangelsklaw Oblast providing for administrativehas now liability been it couldnotberegarded asanarbitrary interference withfreedom ofspeech. demnation of“homosexual” relationships, thatitwas notdiscriminatory andthat the law did not contain any measures aimed at the prohibition, or the official con ing family values orpromoting “homosexuality”. Inconclusion,theCourt heldthat aimed atprotecting children from harmful information, suchasinformation deny manner andbasedontheneedsofchild.TheCourt addedthatthelaw was to receive information, includingabout“homosexuality”, inanage-appropriate However, theCourt noted thatthecontested law didnotrestrict theright ofachild 131

областного судаобластного от 20марта 2013года, Костромского(Определение 33-284/2013 MarchNo. Kostroma20 2013, the of Decision Court, Oblast Свердловского суда районного Костромы от 4декабря2012года поделу№2-1880/2012). Judgment of the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma, 4December 2012, No. 2-1880/2012 (Решение See above, note 66. Ibid. ual relationships people. between to criticallyinability assess thepeculiarities various of sex kindsof on the physiological characteristics ofsuch achild because ofhis 131 The Oblast Court heldthatthere The Oblast hadbeennoevidence pre поделу№33-284/2013). 130 However, this - 128 129

------While the cases were pending before the courts, and despite the refusal to permit justice or complicity? the assemblies, the same activists held protests in front of the children’s library. They held banners saying: “Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality. This is - ofthe homosexuality”. norm”; “Sexual However,orientation the is justicenot chosen”; of the andpeace “Who acquitted will protect the activists gay teenag hav- ingers?”. found All of that them their were actions charged were with not aimedthe administrative at the propaganda offence of ofhomosexuality. “propaganda The justice of the peace stated that prohibited propaganda covers only targeted and uncontrolled dissemination of information that is capable of causing harm addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: to the health, morals or mental development of children, or which causes them to think “traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships” are socially equivalent.132 The decision was unsuccessfully appealed by the police.133

At the same time, in a separate case, the regional law was challenged in the Kostroma Oblast Court by another LGBT activist. The applicant argued that the law violated Article 8 (right to private life), Article 11 (freedom of assemblies) and Article 14 (non-discrimination) of the ECHR, as well as Articles 13 and 29 of the CRC and a number of the Council of Europe recommendations. On 6 July clear and that it complied with international law.134 However, the Court empha- sised2012, that the theKostroma law: Oblast Court dismissed the case finding that the law was

[D]oes not contain any provisions preventing juveniles from devel- oping equally tolerant attitudes to all persons regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, since the formation of such an attitude is possible without promotion of certain phenomena. The law does not establish any measures aimed at banning, or official censure of, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderism.135

The Court further explained that the law, “does not provide for the prohibition of, or liability for, the general mentioning of homosexuality or debate about the social status of sexual minorities, as evidenced by inter alia the practice of its application”.136 On 7 November 2012, the Supreme Court upheld this judgment repeating its reasoning from its earlier decision in relation to the Arkhangelsk Oblast Law.137

The law in Kostroma was repealed when the federal law banning propaganda came into force.

132

Judgment of the Justice of the Peace of District No. 8 of Kostroma, 23 March 2012, (Постановление 133 мировогоJudgment ofсудьи the Leninskiyучастка № District 8 Костромы Court of от Kostroma, 23 марта 20122 May года). 2012, ( ). Решение Ленинского районного 134 суда Костромы от 2 мая 2012 года Decision of the Kostroma Oblast Court, 6 July 2012, No. 2-5/2012 (Определение Костромского област- 135 ногоIbid. суда от 6 июля 2012 года по делу № 2-5/2012). 136 Ibid. 137 69 ). Decision of the Supreme Court of Russia, 7 November 2012, No. 87-АПГ12-2 (Определение Верховного Суда Российской Федерации от 7 ноября 2012 года по делу № 87-АПГ12-2 70 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 140 139 138 (Article 17(1)),before equality thelaw(Article 19),protection dignity of human tion of human rights inaccordance withinternationalhuman rights standards internationallaw over laws oftheRussian Federation (Article15(4)), the protec the Federal Constitution.They argued that thelaw violated the supremacy of Article 6.21 of theCode of Administrative Offences violated theirrights under The three activists jointly arguingthat Court, petitionedtheConstitutional gays isnormal.To beatupgays andto killgays isacrime”. Issakov was prosecuted for displaying abannersaying “To begay andto love exist”and “They become gays, donot they are borngays!” in front of a children’s library withbannerssaying, “Gay-propaganda does not sexualtional relationships toassemblies standing of holding minorsonaccount Alekseyev andYuri Yevtushenko were charged withpropaganda ofnon-tradi cle 6.21(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences. In Arkhangelsk,Nikolai December In 2013, three LGBT rights activists were eachconvicted underArti Prosecutions2.3.3.1 to Pursuant Articleof the 6.21(1) Code ofAdministrative with Russia’s international andEuropean humanrights obligations. law6.21, holdingthe to accordancein be Federalthe with both and Constitution Court has alsohadoccasion toto hear a challenge of Article theconstitutionality internet (Article6.21(2)). The latter carries a higher penalty. The Constitutional of informationassemblies (Article 6.21 atpublic (1)) and through themedia and ganda ofnon-traditionalsexual relationships” boththrough thedissemination Offences has been used on anumberof occasions to convict persons of “propa Since itsintroduction inJune2013, Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative 2.3.3 previous casesrelating to regional propaganda laws. was upheldby theSupreme Court of Russia, again repeating itsreasoning from Court dismissed Oblast and on27 the challengeFebruary 2013, the decision Court on similargrounds as inother regions. On 12 November 2012, the Samara Samaraon 10 July Oblast 2012. The law was challengedintheSamara Oblast bianism, bisexualityand transgenderism among minors” was introduced in the Administrativefor liability propagandaactions aimedat “public of sodomy, les v. TheSamara Oblast

района городарайона Казани от 19декабря2013года). судебного Советского 3 N участка судебногосудьи мирового (Постановление 2013 December 19 Judgment oftheJustice ofthePeace ofJudicialDistrict no. 3oftheSovetskiy JudicialDistrict of Kazan, Архангельска от 3декабря2013года). города района судебного Октябрьского 5 № участка судебногосудьи мирового (Постановление Judgment oftheJusticePeace ofJudicialDistrict No. 5ofArkhangelsk,3 December 2013 Суда РоссийскойФедерацииот Decision of the Supreme Court of Russia, 27 February 2013, No. 46-АПГ13-2 ( Offences “Non-Traditional Sexual Relationships” attheFederal Level Application, Review, andJudicial oftheLaws Propaganda Banning of 27 февраля 2013 27февраля годаподелу №46-АПГ13-2 138 140 139 Определение Верховного In Kazan, Dmitry Kazan, In ). - - - - - (Article 21(2)), freedom of expression (Article 29(1)), the prohibition of incite- justice or complicity? ment of social hatred (Article 29(2)), and the right to disseminate information freely (Article 29(4)). They argued that the law excluded dissemination among minors of any information about LGBT, including information about the social equivalence of close relationships between persons of the same or different sexes. They further contended that the declared aim of protecting public morals and the development of children was not legitimate as being LGBT could not be regarded as immoral. They submitted that the ban was based on prejudice, by virtue of which non-heterosexual relationships are condemned as immoral and, addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: consequently, that the ban infringed on the dignity of LGBT persons and also amounted to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.141

On 23 September 2014, the Constitutional Court issued its judgment on the case in closed proceedings.142 In the operative part of its judgment, the Court held that Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences does not contradict the Federal Constitution because it has the aim of “protecting such constitutional values as family and childhood”, as well as the aim of “preventing harm to the health and moral and spiritual development of minors”. The Court further held that Article 6.21 does not “imply an interference in the sphere of individual autonomy, including the sexual self-determination of a person”, does not have relationships”, and does not prevent “impartial public discussion of questions relatedthe aim to of the “prohibiting, legal status orof sexual official minorities, rapprochement, or the use of non-traditional (…) of all lawful sexual ways of expressing their position on such questions and protection of their rights and lawful interests, including the organisation and holding of public assemblies”. The Court concluded that law only prohibits public actions which have the aim of “disseminating information which popularises non-traditional sexual relationships among minors or imposes such relationships on them”.

To reach this conclusion, the Constitutional Court analysed the applicants’ arguments in several stages. Firstly, the Court considered the applicants’ argument that sexual orientation is an aspect of human dignity. The Court agreed and, with reference to its earlier case law,143 reiterated that human dignity is a non-derogable value, which includes the freedom from any unfounded interference in the sphere of individual autonomy. The Court noted that one of the dimensions of their own preferences, including the right to “freedom of sexual self-determination”,individual including autonomy where is this everyone’s determination right tomay have be adisapproved certain lifestyle of by andthe majordefine- ity.144 Accordingly, sexual conduct not falling under the criminal law ban on actions of a sexual nature with a person under the age of 16, and which occurs by mutual agreement between persons of the same sex, is not prohibited under either international law nor under the equality clause of the Federal Constitu-

141 See above, note 14, Para. 1.2. The petition challenged the law only and not the convictions of the activists. 142 See above, note 14. 143

See, for example, udgment of the Constitutional Court of 20 April 2006, No. 4-P (Постановление 71 144 КонституционногоSee above, note 14, Para. Суда 2.1. Российской Федерации от 20 апреля 2006 года № 4-П). 72 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 147 146 145 based onanindividualised approach. cialists, i.e.teachers, medicalprofessionals orpsychologists aslongitis be presented in a“neutral (educational,artisticorhistorical) context” by spe ondly, age-appropriate information aboutnon-traditional relationships may dissemination ofinformation capableofharmingchildren isprohibited. Sec forms ofsexual identity”. Thus,only “targeted, aggressive anduncontrolled” shall notbeaimedat“forming preferences related to choiceofnon-traditional about “homosexuality”. Firstly, theprovision ofsuchinformation to children clarity, theCourt formulated criteria oflawful dissemination ofinformation sufficient lacked law the that argument applicants’ the to response in ganda hibited propaganda. Inorder to draw theboundaries ofprohibited propa pro the of scope the define to trying to turned then Court Constitutional The ers’ dignityorchallengepublicmorals asunderstood by Russian society”. orientation or concrete forms ofsexualrelationships not impingeonoth shall to statedissemination ofone’s“beliefs that orpreferencesregard with to sexual Russia”,the importanceofmarriageandfamily, inparticular theCourtwent on by thehistoric, culturaland other traditions of population of the multi-national values.stitutional Notingthosevaluesconstitutional which are “predetermined the rights andfreedoms of others and theneedto strikebetweenbalance a con not absolute and was subjectto certain limitationsdue to the need to respect “moralnorms” of themajority. However, theCourt notedthis freedom that was in themedia. or to raise awareness of violations of their rights throughassemblies or public nation, or denied the freedom to advocate lawfully for the rights of social groups can bedenied theright to publicly discuss issues related to sexualself-determi the principlesofpluralism of opinions and freedom of speechimplyno one that tection offreecontextthe speech in of sexual issues. TheCourtexplained that theCourt clause, then setgeneralequality pro boundaries on theconstitutional Havingsexual establishedthat orientation iscovered by theconstitutional ment ofahigher court to explicitly recognise that“homosexuals” are asocialgroup. sexualspecific a orientation. with persons groupof a restrictions based on the fact of affiliation with a social group, which may comprise this obligation derivedfrom whichclause, theconstitutionalequality prohibits entation andensure effective opportunitiesfor theirprotection. IntheCourt’s view, limitations oftherights andlawful interests ofpersonsbecausetheirsexual ori The Court went onto note thattheState musttake measures to exclude possible “irrespective oftheirsexual orientation”. whichtion, according to theCourtguaranteesprotection equal topersons all 149 148

Ibid Ibid. See above, note 14,Para. 2.2. Ibid. Ibid ., Para 3.2. . 147 This was thecaseeven where such ideas were offensive to the 149 145

146 This became the first judg first the became This 148

------Following this, the Court turned to provide explanation as to why the ban on prop- justice or complicity? that may be harmful to their moral or spiritual development. In this regard, the Courtaganda recalled is justified the inneed pursuance to protect of thepublic aim morals, of protecting emphasising children the from aim information of the protection of traditional (that is heterosexual) notions of family based on traditional ideas in the social and historical context of Russian society, including the univer- sally recognised ideas of marriage, family, maternity, fatherhood and childhood, which are formally recognised as legal notions in the Constitution.150 The Court held that “maternity, childhood and family” require “special protection” by the addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: State, noting that it is on the basis of these ideas that:

[T]he Russian Federation has the right to decide individual questions of legislative regulation in these fields, broaching sexual and inter-personal relationships connected with them, not denying the necessity to take into account the requirements of the Consti- tution and international law both with regard to the individual autonomy of a person and with regard to the freedom of dissemination of information.151

Following this, the Court explained that the ban on “propaganda of homosexual- - mation able to urge them on to unconventional sexual relationships, adherence to whichity” is justifiedhinders inthe view establishment of the need ofto familyprotect relationships the child from as the they “influence are traditionally of infor understood in Russia and as they are expressed in the Constitution.”152 At the same is not unconditionally proven. Nevertheless, the Court considered that, bearing in mindtime, thethe Courtaim of acknowledged protecting children, that the who influence having ofnot such attained information their age on of children majority were in a vulnerable position, the federal legislator had the right to introduce restrictions which were based on the presumption of a threat to children’s interests, especially as those restrictions only concerned the targeted direction of information at children, and were not a general restriction on freedom of expression.153 In the Court’s view, protecting children from such information correlated with the provisions of the CRC, which proceeds from the idea that family is the fundamental group in society and should be protected, and also that children must be protected from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse.154

Having discussed the aspects relating to the protection of children, the Court then considered the applicants’ allegation of the discriminatory nature of the prohibition. In the Court’s view, the fact that the ban only extended to “non-traditional sexual relationships” and not to “traditional sexual relationships” did not violate the equality principle in the Federal Constitution. The Court acknowledged

150 Ibid., Para 3. 151 Ibid., Para 3. 152 Ibid., Para 3.2. 153 Ibid. 73 154 Ibid., Para 3.1. 74 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 159 158 157 156 155 to aperson of thesamesex. only andinformation which refers toaffection theemotional ofanindividual between informationLGBT about relationships which refers to sexualrelations ties). Moreover,(such asemotional itisvirtually impossible to drawclear line a priate information or from informationLGBT about relationships more broadly siders thelawthat is protecting children from sexually explicitinapproage and sexualabout This leads towhetherof clarityabout alack conduct. the Courtcon family values,Court implicitly the statessuch relationships that areonly not identity, or lifestyle, andby opposing “non-traditional”relationships as against other hand,by usingthisterm interchangeablysexual with orientation, sexual relations only, theapproachis line withtheliteral that wording of the law. Onthe ditional sexual relationships” is used by theCourt to denote sexual(physical) theCourt’s approachthe onehand,term On First, isinconsistent. “non-tra tionships” inthejudgmentofCourtisproblematic inmany respects. discussed below, thelegalanalysis of the “propaganda of non-traditionalrela in practice, astheremainder of this Partdemonstrate. will be Inaddition, as will out borne been has difficulty This issues. LGBT about speaking exercisedwhen be could rights such which in circumstances envisage to difficult is it that such and assembly, thediscussion of thelimitsthisrightis intheCourt’s judgment recognises the right ofLGBT persons and advocates to freedom of expression sations and individuals. representative,ing onall executive andjudicialauthoritiesaswellas onorgani The decision Court onthemeaningofArticle6.21 is bind of theConstitutional expression oftheirpositionthrough publicactions. of “homosexualrelationships” nordid it prevent LGBT individuals from lawful Court emphasised the lawthat inquestiondid not imply anegative evaluation tive regarding attitudes “non-traditional”individuals. included thoseinstanceswhichmation of overcoming hadtheaim suchnega minorities ual in everyday life andthereforeon dissemination theban of infor guaranteeconstitutional did not imply ofequality towards equalattitudes sex andhinder familychild’s alienation relationships. Thus, intheCourt’s view, the viewsaresocial orientationsthat about notgenerally accepted couldleadto a recognised in theRussian society”. viewsjustify “impositionofsocial tudes cannot from departing those generally Russianminority in reiteratedbut society” of overcomingthe aim that suchatti the existence ofnegative stereotypes andprejudices againstthe “homosexual http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx. APARepresentatives,the byof adopted BisexualFebruaryCouncil Clients, availableand 18–20 2011, at: Gay,Lesbian, with PracticePsychological for Guidelines The Identity,and Gender 2008; and Orientation See Yogyakarta Principles of on the ApplicationInternational HumanRights Law inrelation to Sexual Federation”. This is inaccordancethe Federal with Law,Constitutional Court oftheRussianthe Constitutional “On Ibid Ibid. Ibid, ., Para 3.3. Para 3.2. 158 Although the operative clauseof the Court’s judgment 159 TheapproachCourt fails oftheConstitutional 155 Moreover, theimposition on minors of 157

156 At thesametime, ------to take into account these important aspects and therefore proceeds from the justice or complicity? relationships” serves the legitimate aim of protecting minors from obscene or age-inappropriatesimplified presumption information that the about ban LGBTon “propaganda relationships. of non-traditional160 sexual

Second, the failure of the Court to tackle the openly discriminatory nature of the law sends a strong message that public information about being LGBT is illegal, and as demonstrated in the Part below, the interests of the child have become no more than a pretext for restricting any public speech regarding LGBT issues. The addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: relationships sits ill with the overall conclusion of the Court that the restriction offinding freedom of the of speechCourt that on accountthe law doesof “homosexual not imply apropaganda” negative evaluation pursues ofa legitiLGBT- mate aim: if being LGBT is not immoral or harmful, there is no need to protect children from receiving any information about being LGBT nor can such infor- ban on propaganda does not interfere with individual autonomy or prevent the usemation by sexual infringe minorities on another’s of all dignity. lawful Similarly,ways of expressing the findings their of theposition Court on that ques the- tions of their legal status and protection of their rights, including through the organisation and holding of public assemblies, in reality become merely theo- - tional Court that restrictions on minors’ exposure to information about sexual retical because they cannot be reconciled with the key findings of the Constitu- ent-sex relationships, understanding of public morals. Moreover, the wording ofminorities the federal is justified law does because not leave one any cannot doubts challenge about thethe legislator’s“traditional”, reproach i.e. differ of “non-traditional” (same sex) sexual relationships: it prohibits propaganda of such relationships on the pretext of preventing minors from forming a “distorted understanding of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships”.161 The failure of the Constitutional Court to address this point sends a strong message to society by labelling LGBT relationships of “lesser social equivalence” to different-sex relationships.

The Constitutional Court did not explain why an additional ban on dissemination of information about same-sex sexual relationships is necessary when children are already protected from receiving sexually explicit information by the Crimi- nal Code.162 The Constitutional Court also failed to explain why the prohibition of “propaganda of homosexuality” is essential for protecting the traditional family

Asand will why be other discussed measures, below, unrelated the approach to sexual of the orientation, Constitutional are not Court sufficient. (and other courts) to the interpretation of the ban, and the ban itself, contravenes the rights to freedom of expression and assembly guaranteed in international and Euro- pean human rights law, and also the prohibition on discrimination.

160 See above, note 14, Para 3.2. 161 Ibid., Para 3.2. 162 Article 135 of the Criminal Code prohibits lecherous actions against minors and Article 242 prohibits the 75 dissemination of pornography to minors. 76 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 165 164 163 The Courtrelied ontheopinionofsameexpert that: The decision wasby upheldonappeal theCentralDistrict Court of Khabarovsk. of thearticle,andordered theEditor-in-Chief to pay afineof50,000roubles. sexualidentity.” The justice ofthepeacedid not analyse the content or the aims sexualidentity.” Inher view, thearticlewasof a“violation the freedom to choose sexualidentity, makecould this situation that is possible it to them their doubt tures [of teenagers] do not allow themto yet have completely developed their [of non-traditionalsexual relationships] of teenagers, and astheage-related fea fessor of Pedagogics who stateddrewthe article that “attention to theproblem Article 6.21(2). The justice of the peace took into accounttheopinion of a Pro in-Chief of the regional newspaper in which the articleappearedunder liable 30 January 2014, the justiceofpeaceinKhabarovskOn found theEditor- for). suitable are they age reading what specifying notification a include must 18 (themajorityofprinted materials inRussia,books including andperiodicals, The newspaperit was did anoticethat not include prohibited for persons under teacher who hadbeenforced to resign becauseofhisLGBT rights advocacy. were instituted followinga geographyarticle onlineabout of an the publication cial government body responsible for overseeing the media. offi the (Roskomnadzor), Media Mass Technology,and Information nications, fine”.such casewasOne initiated byadministrative an by punishable be shall – offence criminal a constitute munications networks (includingthe“Internet” network),unless theseactions 6.21(1)) “committed with the use of the media and (or) information and telecom in out set definition the with line in information of (dissemination propaganda media resources. Asnoted above inPartspecific 2.3.3, Article6.21(2) provides that non-LGBT of law this under prosecution of cases of number limited a under Article 6.21(2) of theCode of Administrative Offences, there have been internetthe media and the useof minors with among wasality” introduced Since 29June2013, when administrativefor liability “propagandaof homosexu Prosecutions2.3.3.2 to Pursuant Articleof the 6.21(2) Code ofAdministrative

Хабаровска January 2014 ( district Judgment ofthejustice ofthepeacejudicial no. 26 of theCentralDistrict of Khabarovsk, 30 ticles&action=view&id=299. ( “A Story with Gayography”( er behaved in an openly gayHe mannerinpublic. arguedhatred that has itsroots in thefamily. See: his sexual that ee claimed affectorientation didnot hisprofessional performancehe hadnev andthat LGBTaction ontheday public againsthe was homophobia andthat attacked Theinterview after it. The articlewasinterview an the ex-teacher with who explainedhe hadonceparticipatedthat inan For more information, seetheirwebsite, available at: Молодой Offences tionships ingeneral. Theauthor systematically andconsistently tion –the gay teacher –andtowards non-traditional sexual rela (…) aimedatcreating apositive attitudeto the hero ofpublica [T]he text presented (…) contains anumberofpositive statements

Дальневосточник

от 30 Постановление января 2014 История ), 20 September 2013, available at: http://www.mdgazet.ru/?module=arat: available 2013, September 20 ),

года мирового ).

с the FederalService for Supervision of Commu гейографией

судьи

судебного http://government.ru/en/department/58 ), On-LineMagazine “Molodoy Dalnevostochnik”

участка 26 № 163 Центрального The proceedings - -

. района 165 164 ------

generates a positive image in the reader of the teacher; depicts justice or complicity? the teacher as a champion of the idea that, in spite of harassment, he was ready to defend his right to a different sexual orientation (…) The bright and positive (…) as opposed to heartless and aggressive world of heterosexuals. The hero of the material, the teacher, enjoys prestige among adolescent students. The private, and especially the sexual, life of the teacher is therefore the subject of increased interest of the students. (…) The article can form

in adolescents negative feelings towards heterosexuals in general, addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: to their family and their parents in particular. The author of the article uses manipulative techniques to attract attention to the problem, giving it weight and importance.166 the justice of the peace in Moscow dismissed a case instituted by the Roskom- nadzorIn another against instance the Editor-in-Chiefinvolving a non-LGBT of a TV specific channel media for airing source a inFrench March movie, 2014, “Les chansons d’amour” (“Love Songs”), which had been show at the Cannes Film Festival in 2007. The Roskomndazor alleged that the movie promoted by having a relationship with a person of the same sex after the death of another.”“non-traditional167 The justice relationships” of the peace orderedbecause anthe assessment main character of the “finds movie consolation by a psy- traditionalcho-linguistic relationships. expert, who concluded that there were no elements identified in the film which promoted LGBT relationships or which denied or disrespected On 16 March 2015, a publishing house in Vladivostok was found liable under Article 6.21(2) for publishing an article in a magazine discussing three lesbian relationships. The article, “When Like Charges Get Attracted”, discussed the different experiences of lesbian relationships and was accompanied by photo- graphic illustrations.168 of 1,000,000 roubles (approximately USD 15,000). The judge did not analyse The judge ordered the publishing house to pay a fine report. This report concluded that the article contained “information that cre- atesthe contents an image of ofthe the article attractiveness but referred of tonon-traditional the findings ofsexual a linguistic relationships”, expert’s and contained “statements with respect to non-traditional relationships which could form unconventional sexual attitudes among minors.” The judge noted

166 Judgment of the Central District Court of Khabarovsk of 7 April 2014, case no. 12-145/14 (

Решение 167 ЦентральногоJudgment of the районного justice of the суда peace Хабаровска of judicial от district 7 апреля no. 4122014 of года the Odintsovskiy по делу № 12-145/14). District of Moscow, 24 March 2014, No. 5-69/14 ( 24 2014 Постановление мирового судьи судебного участка № 412 Одинцовского 168 района Москвы от марта года по делу № 5-69/14). articleJudgment “When of the Like Frunzenskiy Charges Get District Attracted” Court described of Vladivostok three stories of 16 March of lesbian 2015, couples: No. 5-25/2015. how they (Решениеmet, what itФрунзенского felt like to be attractedрайонного to a суда girl, whatВладивостока intimate relationships от 16 Марта meant 2015 to года them. по One делу of the№ 5-25/2015).stories covered The a couple who met when they were 16. The stories contained descriptions of sexual experiences, such as (in the most explicit parts): “We were very young, beautiful, sexual, plastic. We were kissing each other, gig- 77 in front of us.” gling (…) our excitement grew. Forget Internet porn – everything was much more attractive in the mirror 78 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 171 170 169 and psychologicalsupport to youngwhopeople experiencedistress emotional explained thematerials that of the website were aimed at providing emotional place. The Court referred to an expert statement frompsychologist a local and Court discontinuedcase dueto2014, the the havingact criminal of a lack a taken the prosecution violated internationalhuman rights standards. On 24 February the onlinecontentthat promotedid not any sexual andfurther that conduct, to supportLGBT teenagersto and preventShe arguedthem. suicides among of Nizhniy Tagil,Ms Klimova arguedthe Children-404 that project was set up amounted to prohibited propaganda.Before theDzerzhinskiy DistrictCourt general in contents its that alleged instead but website the on information cific In bringingthe case against MsKlimova, thepolicedid not rely onany spe and theother administrators didnotpostcommentsormaterials themselves. dating andto ensure thatnoobsceneoroffensive languageisused.MsKlimova ensure thattheinformation publisheddidnotdiscussissuesofsexual conductor ments (which could be published without being reviewed by a moderator first) to site, reviewed letters before postingthemonthewebsite andalsoreviewed com private consultations.MsKlimova, together withtheother moderators ofthe web detailing theirpersonalstories to seekcommentsfrom others, or they canrequest port orprofessional advice, onananonymous basis.Teenagers canpublishletters is to offer LGBT teenagers anopportunityto request includingpeersup support, together withseveral othervolunteers andpsychologists. Theideaofthegroup for LGBT teenagers, “Children-404”. MsKlimova hasrun Children-404 since2012 against ElenaKlimova, theadministrator ofawell-known onlinesupportgroup ary 2014,thepoliceinNizhny Tagil instituted proceedings underArticle 6.21(2) online platforms to remove information thatamountsto propaganda. InFebru consider thatdisseminationofinformation includesafailure by thosemoderating courts and authorities the that demonstrates case following The media. specific Proceedings have alsobeeninstituted pursuantto Article 6.21(2)against LGBT information ableto urge themonto unconventional sexual relationships”. of “influence the from children protect to is propaganda on ban legislative the Court tional in relation to Article6.21 relationships.bian) the articleformedthat an imageof the attractiveness of “non-traditional”(les The decision wasby upheldonappeal thePrimorsky Regional which held Court, proper orientation.” took into accountthe“importanceofsexual education ofchildren andtheir and over (suchthatisitwas notprohibited for thosebetween 16and18), that the magazine only had a notification that it was restricted to those aged 16 172

See above, note 170. новление Court Judgment of of the Constitutional the Russian Federation, 23 September 2014, No. 24-P ( суда от 30апреля2015года поделу№7-12-168). краевого Приморского(Решение 7-12-168 No. 2015, April 30 Court, KraiPrimorskiy the of Judgment Ibid .

Конституционного 170 169 The Court referred to thelegalreasoning oftheConstitu

Суда

Российской 171

Федерации to support its finding that the goal of goal the that finding its support to

от

23 сентября 2014года №24-П). 172 Поста------due to their sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as who suffered from justice or complicity? hate speech and homophobic acts.173

However, on 18 November 2014, the Roskomnadzor instituted proceedings against Ms Klimova on the basis of Article 6.21(2). The proceedings were prompted by a complaint to the Roskomnadzor from the Young Guard, a patri- holding the majority of seats in Parliament. The Roskomnadzor alleged that: otic movement affiliated with the United Russia, the political party currently addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: The community “Children-404 LGBT teenagers” is a group freely accessible on the Internet which publicly discusses stories of children with non-traditional sexual orientation and gives a range of advice and well-wishing sentiments to its users. In the Community there is no (…) warning about the restrictions on the distribution of this kind of information among children. In general the materials posted in the Community are directed toward the formation among minors of non-traditional sexual attitudes, attraction to non-traditional sexual relationships, and the distorted representation of social equality between traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.174

According to the Roskomnadzor, the information contained in the online community was mainly focused on the creation of a:

Positive image of non-traditional sexual relationships in the eyes of children, their equivalence to, and in some cases superiority over, traditional relationships. Such relationships are strongly endorsed, supported and receive endorsing positive user comments. At the same time, in this community there is almost no information about how these relationships are non-traditional in the understanding of the regulations, customs and practices of the Russian Federa- tion. Thereby creating an increased concentration of attention by minors on the issues of non-traditional sexual relationships, which could significantly deform children’s ideas about constitutional values such as family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood, and have a negative impact not only on the child’s mental state and development but also on his social adaptation.175

To support this conclusion, the Roskomnadzor cited excerpts from the letters posted by users of the online community. These included a contribution titled, “More often than not I’m proud that I’m gay,” which contained the statements:

173 Judgment of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizniy Tagil, 28 February 2014, No. 5-18/2014 ( 28 2014 Поста- новление Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила от февраля года по делу 174 №Record 5-18/2014). of administrative proceedings of 18 November 2014 no. 01-1-41-14-1610 ( 18 2014 Протокол об адми- 79 175 нистративномIbid. правонарушении от ноября года № 01-1-41-14-1610). 80 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 177 176 63(1) Article oftheFamilyand (2)of theConstitution and Code of theRussian the viewofRoskomnadzor,In suchcomments were contrary to Article38(1) plaints abouthissexual orientation: gaycondemned a teenagerencouraged and himto ignoreridicule hercom and such commentsopenlythat expressnegative a toward attitude mother who a Referring to commentssuchasthefollowing, theRoskomnadzor considered self-worth, same-sexand that relationships are superior to traditional ones. a courageous, strong, self-assured, resilient person asense with of dignity and general,are designed to inspire inchildrento theideathat LGBT be meansto be likeand beautiful noother. The Roskomnadzor statedthese materials,that in confident a became he that gay,person after he realisedbe his sexualLGBTorientation, andthat teens are special to proud is he that states man a which in The Roskomnadzor also referred to avideo-message posted in thecommunity 179 178

Anonymous, Commentmadeononlineplatform Children-404, 20October 2014. See above, note 174. Anonymous, Commentmadeononlineplatform Children-404, 20October 2014. page isblocked by acourtorder (seePart 2.3.3.3below). ments were originally availablehttp://vk.com/deti404_vk.at: However, since20September 2015 this Anonymous,platform Commentmadeononline Children-404, 20Octoberthe letters 2014. All com and have aboyfriend. gay, anditsoundsgood (…) And Ihave somethingto beproudI of, andIbecame like Butmoreity often that. than notI’mproud to be maybe, wasthinkit whenthat, wasI achildmentalin had ashift I Sometimesproud I’m to begay,sometimes think I and thenbi, I’m I their knees before herandfork outmoney! thinkand sheshouldn’t that old agein her peoplewill crawl on abovement your isright: mom was a fool, being shewill die afool, appointments andalot of other newthings!The author ofthe com troubles will end. You will start anewlife, have newsensations, You have great perspective, your lifeand soon your hasjustbegun Yeah (…) so your parents got to you! Wipeyour tears, you hear? envision herwith aclown nose),sothat you donotwound her. ridiculous (there’sno prompt: you have to thinkup yourself,it just respond) or by the “boggart-style”: think ofyour mother looking not and do we ears, “smile our past fly the things let and by nod (we method resolved wave” be can mother] your [with Conflicts right to humandignity. andperseverance,age, solidarity defended having their historical and humiliation,the people of the LGBT showed community cour througha path discrimination oftotal destruction,imprisonment, associated with sexual orientation itself, butwith the fact that, stems the tradition of“Pride”parades or“Prides” – isapridenot theThe “Pride”of LGBT –from community thephilosophy which of 176 177 179 - - - 178 - -

Federation, which states that motherhood, childhood and the family are under justice or complicity? the protection of the state and parents have the primary responsible for the upbringing and development of their children, and must take care of their children’s health and physical, mental, spiritual and moral development.180

The following comment was considered by the Roskomnadzor to create a positive attitude towards non-traditional relationships, treating them as though they are equivalent to traditional relationships, and possibly as a more attractive type

of relationship. addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts:

On March 26th, when we went for a walk, it was in the forest, we romped around with each other, we flung each other in the snow banks, laughing (this is the first time we touched each other!) and in the evening of this memorable day I decided to ask (…) to be my girlfriend, and she accepted my offer *-* God, I was so afraid to do it, I could not even imagine that I would hear a positive response :D IT IS THE ONLY DAY THAT STILL MAKES ME SMILE, MY HEART BEATING FASTER THAN USUAL!!!!181

Are What We Are’ From The Lips Of A Teacher At A Grade School Sounds Unfa- miliarAnother And post Weird”, on the had community the following was headed,comments “The posted: Phrase ‘It Is Not A Choice, We

Happiness to you, author, and find new, good friends. I’m sure for us, too, sooner or later things will change for the better. Because we are the future, each of us. There is equality in the U.S., yes, but it did not fall out of the sky – people fought for it and got it.182

The phrase “it’s not a choice, we are what we are” sounds like you are being absolved of guilt. Like, it’s not my fault, it’s all nature, I’m made like this. But there’s no need to be absolved. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a choice or not: what’s most important is that it’s your private life, and anyone who wants to see you as something else, they can get lost. When people accuse me of making a choice or something, decided to be gay or bi or whatever – instead [of asking for absolution] I want to tell them: “Yes, I made a choice because I have the full right, this is my life!” (even if you did not make a choice, and were born [the way you are]). Because those who dare to reproach me for daring to be different from the majority can go to hell.183

In the view of the Roskomnadzor, this commentary contained an assertion designed to create among children the false impression that LGBT relationships

180 See above, note 174. 181 Anonymous, Comment made on online platform Children-404, 24 October 2014. 182 Anonymous, Comment made on online platform Children-404, 1 November 2014. 81 183 Anonymous, Comment made on online platform Children-404, 1 November 2014. 82 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 184 moted “non-traditional sexual relationships”, statingthat: the Young Guard.the contents Sheconcluded that oftheonlinecommunitypro Matveeva from theMoscow State University, which had beencommissioned by Roskomnadzor provided an expert opinion by Professor of Psychology Lidia During the proceedings before the justiceof the peaceinNizhniy Tagil,the in GodandBelieve thatSodomy isaSin,even worse thansuicide”: The comments were posted in response tohate “I aposttitled, myself. IBelieve “non-traditionaland put relationships” above thereligious beliefs ofthechild. relationships”, which they consider to violate thereligious freedom of citizens believer to whom they were addressed, to refuse God in favour of“homosexual Finally, they considered the followingthat comments urged the teenage religious the socialequivalencetion about of “homosexual”and traditional relationships. were superiorexceptional and to traditionalcontained informaalso ones and 186 185

Ibid Anonymous, Commentmadeononlineplatform Children-404, 29October 2014. See above, note 174. . the meansthey useare notadequate for this purpose,insofar as goalThe 2. the of creators the of internet resource but isvirtuous, ple who differ from the majority. site indirectly calls as a whole toto bemore society tolerant ofpeo thoughtonceleast at committingabout theaddition, suicide). In they become aware oftheir homosexual orientation, have seriously site Children-404,more thanchildrenof 30% and adolescents, once (accordingcommunity conductedto surveys by the authors ofthe theprevention attemptssuicide of andsuicides, commonthis in assurance ofsupportfrom the group. Such agoal contributes to the and life dignified full, a of hope the them in install to are, they withnon-traditional sexual orientations to accept themselves as generalorientation. humanistic aim istoTheir encourage people in the VKontaktesocial network andsiteChildren-404) of have a The materials1. submitted for evaluation (as well as the page itself you love, are you sure you needsuch aGod? a noteyour about onlyone.If Godisready toyou punish for what thinkunnecessaryit to repeat whathas already said. I’llmake been (…). Dear People have written somany words ofsupportthat I a Godwho forbids melove. And you? changeyour [sexual] orientationyourin is not power. need don’t I approvesmy of You actions. can change yourreligious beliefs,tobut what isgood andwhatthink is badanddon’t about whether God easy,an atheist me,being trust but is much easier. myselfI decide goods,betterit isn’t to giveunderstandI up? it up Godisnot giving religionIf makes you unhappy andmakes you feel like damaged 185 186 - 184 - -

they contain elements of both covert and overt propaganda of justice or complicity? non-traditional sexual relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to involve medical professionals, psychologists and psychotherapists in the work on this problem in order to develop state-sponsored programs to support children and adults with pathological forms of sexual identity.

3. Alongside this, placement of such materials containing elements

of hidden propaganda of homosexual relationships is very danger- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: ous, because in fact there is an attempt to present non-traditional sexual orientation as a norm (a variant of the norm), and thus to “legitimise sin.” Of course, such a paradigm of social medium will create a certain orientation in the formation of the psychological needs and behavioural patterns of children and adolescents with a psychologically immature gender identity.

4. In addition, it is clear there is the encouragement of the social need of people with a non-traditional sexual orientation to expand the community in order to feel more confident in society (to resist social exclusion). However, calls to a “sexually traditional majority” to be more tolerant toward gay minorities can and should be formulated differently.187 the emergence of an interest in children about “non-traditional forms of sexual behaviour”Based on these and findings, that they her amounted conclusion to propaganda. was that the materialsShe also concluded may contribute that the to materials provided a “distorted picture of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships”. 188

Having referred to this opinion, on 3 February 2015, the justice of the peace found Elena Klimova liable for “propaganda of homosexuality” to minors on roubles.189 Ms Klimova argued in her defence that the Children-404 project wasthe internet set up to pursuant support LGBTto Article teenagers 6.21(2) and and did ordered not promote her to anypay sexuala fine of conduct. 50,000 To support her position she provided expert statements by a child psycholo- gist from St. Petersburg Medical Academy and a psychiatrist, a member of the local commission on minors’ issues. She also referred to the position of the Constitutional Court, which had provided a restrictive interpretation of what

187 Report of the expert assessment of text materials and a video in the community “Children-404” with regard to identifying characteristics of propaganda of non-traditional sexual realtionships among minors, 6 December 2014 (Заключение экспертизы текстовых материалов и видеоролика в сообществе “Дети 404” социальной сети “ВКонтакте” на предмет наличия в нем признаков пропаганды нетрадиционных сексуальных отношений среди несовершеннолетних, от 6 декабря 2014 года), available at: https://rkn.gov.ru/docs/JEkspertiza_Deti_404.pdf. 188 Ibid. 189 Judgment of the justice of the peace of the judicial district no. 5 of the Dzerzhinskiy District of Nizniy Tagil of 3 August 2015, case no. 5-7/2015 ( 3 2015 83 Постановление мирового судьи судебного участка № 5 Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила от февраля года по делу № 5-7/2015). 84 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 193 192 191 190 the website amounted to propaganda, again referring to theexpert opinion: niy Tagilupheld theconviction. findings. her other professors, including from theMoscow State University, who denounced five of opinions the disregarding time this Matveeva, by report expert’s the on exclusivelydecision this based peace earlier,the As of fine. justice same the the ing, thejusticeof the peaceagain found Ms Klimova and ordered liable her to pay the casefor a fresh hearing. specify which of MsKlimova’s actsamounted to propaganda. The Court remitted which reversed itonproceduralgrounds because thejustice of the peacedid not The decision was to appealed theDzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil, garded all thesearguments. amounted to prohibited propaganda. However, thejusticeofpeacedisre 194

Ibid. № 12-215/2015). ( Judgment oftheDzerzhinskiy District Court ofNizniy Tagil,30 November 2015, No. 12-215/2015 № 5-549/2015). 2 № Tagil,3 August 2015, No. 5-549/2015 ( 2 oftheDzerzhinskiydistrict no. peace ofthejudicial of the of thejustice Judgment DistrictofNizniy 44/2015). Дзержинского Judgment oftheDzerzhinskiy District CourtofNizniy Tagil,25 March 2015, No. 12-44/2015 ( Ibid Решение . non-traditional sexual relationships. Thus, itdistorts the notionofthe social equivalence oftraditional and world which isbetter andmore comfortable than the (…) ordinary which normal,clever andeducated itdescribes peopleinteract, this ships, itcreates attractiveness an illusory ofthe LGBT-community in contains acall for beingproud ofnon-traditional sexual relation equivalence oftraditional andnon-traditional sexual relations: it materials examined forms animpression ofthe necessity ofthe social in these communities are silenced. Theinformation contained inthe more comfortable, diverse, joyful, while the negative sides existing increasescommunity the self-esteem ofanindividual,makes hislife of amanwith non-traditional sexual orientation. Belonging to this tion, inthese materials there isinformation forming apositive image non-traditionalsexual attitudes thein video-clip texts.and addi In levels, therefore itcan beconcluded that there ispropaganda of behavioural and semantic emotional, cognitive, the on is influence est amongminorsinnon-traditional forms ofsexual behavior. The textualand materials encouragemay the development interan of minors non-traditional sexual attitudes, the contents ofthe video-clip mitted to the expert there isinformation aimedatforming among In accordance with the saidexpert opinion,inthe materials sub Дзержинского

Дзержинского 192

On 30 November On 2015, the Dzerzhinskiy District Court ofNizh районного

районного

суда 191

190 города суда However, on28 July 2015, following anewhear

193

суда

города The Court foundthe materials that posted to

Нижнего

города Постановление

Нижнего

194 Тагила

Тагила

от

Тагила мирового 25

от марта

от 3 30

августа 2015 судьи ноября

года 2015 судебного 2015

по года

года делу - - - -

Решение

по участка по 12- №

делу делу - - -

The Court then went on to determine that Ms Klimova could not have failed to justice or complicity? understand that the materials amounted to propaganda and that her posting of them, and her failure to remove comments, amounted to dissemination:

As the justice of the peace correctly held the criterion for Klimova’s guilt in committing the said offence is the inadequate performance of her functions as the community’s administrator: Elena Klimova deliberately placed on the community’s page the users’ letters and did not

delete from the page comments containing propaganda of non-tradi- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: tional sexual relations. She could not not understand that this trivial, from her viewpoint, informing in this particular situation may have characteristics of agitation (propaganda), however she reacted indif- ferently, having disseminated (placed) information of the specific contents on her page, accessible to Internet users, including minors.195

2.3.3.3 Prohibition of information: Federal Law “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development”

In addition to Article 6.21(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, which allows for individuals to be prosecuted for disseminating propaganda, Russian law also allows the Roskomnadzor or the courts to declare that certain information cannot be disseminated, which includes requiring websites to be shut down. In accordance with Article 15.1 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information” (Federal Law on Information),196 the Roskomnadzor maintains a registry of domains and URLs that contain information prohibited for dissemination in the Russian Federation. Websites listed in this registry must be deleted by the domain owner within one day of being listed. In the event that the domain’s owner does not comply with the request, the service provider must restrict access to the website. The Roskomnadzor has discretionary powers to list certain types of information, such as pornographic images of minors, in the registry, a decision which can be challenged in court.197 However, in all other instances, a court order is needed to include information in the registry.198 Using this second avenue, in a case of alleged propaganda, the Roskomnadzor or public prosecutor can seek a court order that the website containing the propaganda must be shut down on the basis that dissemination of propaganda is prohibited by the Federal Law “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development”.199

195 Ibid. 196 Federal Law, “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information”, No. 149-FZ, 27

July 2006 (Федеральный закон от 27 июля 1996 года № 149-ФЗ “Об информации, информационных 197 технологияхA list of the information и о защите which информации”). falls within the discretionary powers is provided in Article 15.1 and includes pornographic images of minors, explanations of how to manufacture narcotics and information on methods of committing suicide. 198 See above, note 196, Article 15.1. 199 See above, note 80. The law prohibits information which “denies family values, promotes non-traditional sexual relationships and forms disrespect for parents and (or) the other members of the family” among 85 children regardless of their age. 86 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 201 200 of thepagesChildren-404 declared to beprohibited information pursuant request to theOktyabrskiy Petersburg District Court of St. to have thecontents a filed Petersburg St. in prosecutor public the proceedings, these to parallel In about thecontents oftheinternet pagesofChildren-404. information any contain not did file case Moreover, the relationships”.sexual to thegeneralprovisions of thelaw prohibiting propaganda of“non-traditional did not analyse the contents of the Children-404 web pages,instead referring law. However,was theappeal rejected by theRegionalThe Regional Court. Court Court of23Septembertutional 2014 which limited thescopeofpropaganda of theChildren-404the goals project. Shereferred to thedecision of theConsti contentsassess the actual oftheChildren-404 pages andto give dueweight to her to theproceedings was unlawful.She further argued the courtfailed that to to disseminate informationthe failurethat and oftheDistrictCourtto summon of theDistrictthe judgment Courtviolatedthat her rightto defend thefreedom ment astheadministrator of Children-404. Ms KlimovaIn her appeal, argued The RegionalCourt acknowledged Klimovaof Ms the standing to the judg appeal site was immediately shut down. tojudgment appealed the Altayskiythe RegionalChildren-404the web Court, dren-404. Although after ElenaKlimova, theadministrator ofChildren-404, to shutdown thepage.ThejudgmentofCourt was notprovided to Chil court order only when the Roskomnadzor notified VKontakte that it had a duty ceedings are non-contentious. order an without summoningtheowners ofthedomainswhen itconsiders thatthepro make to it allows which significance, legal of facts establishing for of domainsbannedfor dissemination.TheCourt utilisedaspecialprocedure todomains prohibitedcontain information registrythe on placed be could that On 7August 2015,theCentral DistrictCourt ofBarnauldeclared thefour pening atthesametime. Elena Klimova, theadministrator ofChildren-404, although they were hap were unrelated to theproceedings instituted by the Roskomnadzor against other things. noted above, ismonitored soasnotto containany sexual among content, However, therequest alsoconcernedthepageof“Children-404” which, as pages includedexplicit sexual content on gay datingrelating to teenagers. the of Three office. prosecutor’s the to legislature local the of member a by takte” asprohibited information. Theprosecution followed acomplaintmade ordercourt a seeking ings fourdeclaring networksocial a of pages “VKon this legalUsing avenue, prosecutor thepublic initiatedin Barnaul proceed 202

краевого Decision of theAltayskiy Regional 13 January 2016, No. 33-198/2016 ( Court, районного Judgment oftheCentral7 AugustDistrict CourtofBarnaul, 2015, No. 2-5816/15 ( For more information aboutChildren-404, seeabove, Part 2.3.3.3.

суда

суда 200

от

Theproceedings to closedown thewebsite ofChildren-404 города 13 января

Барнаула 2016

года от 201 13

по Accordingly, Children-404 learnedaboutthe апреля

делу №33-198/2016). 2016 года

по

делу №2-5816/15). 202

Определение Решение

Центрального

Алтайского ------to the Federal Law on Information.203 The prosecution came following a com- justice or complicity? plaint from the Young Guard, who also provided the prosecutor with the expert opinion issued by Lidia Matveeva. As occurred in the Barnaul proceedings, Chil-

March 2015, the District Court declared the pages of Children-404 to be pro- hibiteddren-404 information. was not notified This judgment of the proceedings. was made onIn athe judgment sole basis delivered of the experton 25 opinion and without any analysis of the contents of the pages themselves.204 The judgment was appealed by Ms Klimova to the St. Petersburg City Court, arguing the same points that she had made in the proceedings in Barnaul. On 1 October addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: 2015, the City Court quashed the judgment on the basis of the District Court’s failure to summon Ms Klimova to the proceedings. However, the City Court then discontinued the proceedings with reference to the 7 August 2015 judgment of the Barnaul court as issued on the same matter. Accordingly, the Court did not assess any arguments relating to the substantive merits of the appeal.205

On 21 September 2015, following the Barnaul court’s judgment of 7 August 2015, Children-404 launched a new version of its platform (which was the same platform simply moved to a new web address). In November 2015, the public a court declaration that this new version of Children-404, which was launched followingprosecutor the filed entry a new into action force ofwith the the 7 August Central 2015 District judgment, Court of disseminated Barnaul seeking prohibited information. The prosecutor provided copies of the general description of the aims of the project and several letters of teenagers published on it as the proof of propaganda of “non-traditional sexual relationships”. The prosecutor’s request did not analyse the contents of these letters or the aims of the project. On 13 April 2016, the District Court upheld the prosecutor’s request without assessing the contents of any materials on Children-404.206 The Court ignored the expert opinions of a psychiatrist and a professor in psychology of the Mos- cow State University, both of which explained that the project contained no elements of prohibited propaganda. On 22 June 2016, the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Altayskiy Regional Court.207

2.3.4 Denial of Permission to Hold Public Assemblies

Whereas the previous parts considered cases in which individuals in public assemblies were prosecuted for “propaganda of homosexuality” because of their participation in LGBT assemblies, this Part considers cases in which permission

203 Prosecutors are able to initiate proceedings in their own jurisdiction which may overlap with proceed-

ings for the same matter instituted in another jurisdiction as there is no official co-operation between the 204 differentJudgment regional of the Oktyabrskiy prosecutors’ District offices. Court of St. Petersburg, 25 March 2015, No. 2-1551/2015 ( 25 2015 Решение 205 ОктябрьскогоDecision of the районногоSt. Petersburgсуда CityСанкт-Петербурга Court, 1 Octoberот 2015,марта No. 33-12546/2015года по делу ( № 2-1551/2015). 1 2015 Определение Санкт- 206 Петербургского городского суда от октября года по делу № 33-12546/2015). Judgment of the Central District Court of Barnaul, 13 April 2016, No. 2-644/16 (Решение Центрального 207 районногоDecision of theсуда Altayskiy города Барнаула Regional Court,от 13 апреля22 June 2016 2016, года No. по33-6785/2016 делу № 2-644/16). ( 87 Определение Алтайского краевого суда от 22 июня 2016 года по делу № 33-6785/2016). 88 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 213 212 211 210 209 208 – other used authorities the as covert were motives discriminatory cases, children andviolate theprohibition of“homosexual propaganda”. religious feelings orviolate publicmorals orbecauseitwould beharmfulto and opposingprotesters, becausesuchanassembly would causeoffence to because ofitsdisapproval by others, possibleclashesbetween theactivists ities considered thatanLGBT themedpublicassembly couldnotproceed wereopenly related to LGBTthe event,the of theme whenas such author the These refusals were madeonvarious grounds. Insomecases,thesegrounds refused permissionto holdtheproposed assemblies. Tyumen andKazan.Intheoverwhelming majorityof instances, theauthorities Russia,ies in Moscow, including Petersburg, St. Kostroma, Ryazan, Arkhangelsk, there have beennumerous attempts to organise suchassembliesinvarious cit LGBT rights in2006 by theleader of the Moscow advocacy group GayRussia, official an organise to attempt first the Since protest (assembly orpicket) by oneperson. participants. theassembly,tion about or includingitsgoals,time,place route and numberof their intention toassembly holdan provide and informa theauthoritieswith Assemblies), the organiserassembly of apublic authorities of mustnotifylocal Demonstrations,Assemblies, Meetings, Marches Picketing” and was denied to holdtheassembliesthemselves. Pursuantto theFederalLaw “On cId=2273324&Usage=2. InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2756047&SecMode=1&Do No. 4916/07)”,plication DH-DD(2015)565, 29 May 2015, availablehttps://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.at: GA-Europe’)(15/05/2015) and“ComingOut”) in thecaseofAlekseyev against Russian Federation(Ap (‘IL Association Intersex and Trans Gay,Bisexual, Lesbian, (International NGOs from “Communication Ministers, of Committee Europe, of Council and playDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804a1d42; ary 2014, Paras 28and29,availablehttps://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Disat: case of Alekseyev against Russian FederationNo. 4916/07)”, (Application DH-DD(2014)228, 13 Febru Ministers, of Committee from“Communication NGOs (“ComingOut”,Russian LGBT Network,ILGA-Europe) (04/02/2014) in the Europe, of Council DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804a7b5f; DD(2015)564, 29 May 2015, availablehttps://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/at: (15/05/2015) in thecaseofAlekseyev againstRussian FederationNo. 4916/07)”,(Application DH- Council ofEurope, Committee ofMinisters, “Communication from NGOs(GayRussia andMoscowPride) tId=09000016805929b8. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documen at: available Court ofHumanRights,pean “H/Exec(2014)5, Alekseyev vtheRussian Federation”, 16September 2014, Code=RUS&SectionCode; and Council of Europe, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Euro t/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=alekseyev&State Human executionAlekseyevRussia”,of – of statecurrentv “Pending cases: Rights, Court availablehttp://www.coe.in Europeanat: the of пикет Judgments of Execution the властямиfor Department Europe, of http://www.topnews.ru/news_id_39182.Council санкционированный html; at: первый available меньшинств), прошел сексуальных Санкт-Петербурге представителей (В 2010 November “Moscow Gay Pride”( vided intheLaw onAssemblies. Official is used here to refer to a public assembly held in accordance with the notification procedure pro Ibid шествиях ипикетированиях”). демонстрациях, митингах, собраниях, “О 54-ФЗ № года 2004 июня 19 от закон (Федеральный of FederalLaw, Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, “On Marches and Picketing”19 June 2004, No. 54-FZ oNw Aec, Te is LB asml ws emte i Rsi i 21 i S. eesug, 21 Petersburg”, St. in 2010 in Russia in permitted was assembly LGBT first “The Agency, TopNews ., Article7. 209 This applies toassemblies otherinthecaseofa than public all Московский

гей-прайд ), available at:www.gayrussia.eu/gayprides/moscow. 210 public assembly public advocating for 212

208 (the Law on 213 Inother 211 ------

justice or complicity? such as that it would distract drivers and landscaping works.214 For example, inostensibly 2010 LGBT LGBT-neutral activists in –St. pretexts Petersburg for denyingwere denied permission permission for to an hold assembly, a Gay Pride march due to various security or administrative reasons, including the unsuitability of the location. However, in the same year the Young Guard, the youth wing of pro-government party United Russia, was allowed to organise a meeting in support of “family and traditional family values” in the same location.215 Following the adoption of regional laws banning propaganda in numerous Russian regions in 2011 and 2012, and eventually the federal law banning addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: so called “homosexual propaganda” in 2013, these laws have been routinely used as the only, or the leading, legal ground for denying LGBT activists permission to hold assemblies. public assemblies. In most cases, the applicants raised discrimination arguments.Our research However, identified despite over the 70 fact court that cases in at challenging least 10 cases refusals the courts to permit accepted LGBT that the refusal of permission to hold an assembly was unlawful, in no case was it found that the authorities’ actions were discriminatory. The below overview provides an analysis of the judicial reasoning in the cases concerning denial of permission to hold LGBT public assemblies since the emergence of the majority of regional and federal laws against “propaganda of homosexuality” in 2011. The cases described are exemplary of the reasoning seen in most of these cases.

Between 2012 and 2013, the Mayor of the City of Arkhangelsk denied permission to hold eight public assemblies on the basis that the assemblies would violate either the Arkhangelsk Oblast Law “On certain measures of protection of morals and health of children of the Arkhangelsk Oblast” or the Federal law “On Protec- tion of Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development”. Each of the assemblies sought to advance similar aims: disseminating information about discrimination against LGBT persons: informing the public about the - statementsocial equivalence that there of should LGBT berelationships no homophobia and heterosexualagainst LGBT relationships;persons.216 In eachcrit icising the federal anti-propaganda law; and/or disseminating the President’s

214 See, for example, Judgment of the Khimnkinskiy District Court of the Moscow Oblast, 22 May 2013, No.

- 2-4078/2013 (Решения Химкинского городского суда Московской области от 30 ноября 2012 года по делу № 2-5868/2012 и от 22 мая 2013 года по делу № 2-4078/2013). Judgment of the Kh- tionimnkinskiy of four Districtsuch cases Court in St.of the Petersburg Moscow see:Oblast, Lashmankin 22 May 2013, and No.Others 2-4078/2013 v Russia, Application (Решение No. Химкинского 57818/09, городского суда Московской области от 22 мая 2013 года по делу № 2-4078/2013). For a descrip

215 22Ibid. January, Lashmankin 2013, Statementand Others of v Russia.Facts, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-116762. 216 See Judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Arkhangelsk, 27 January 2012, No. 2-938/2012 ( 27 2012

2-424/2013Решение Октябрьского ( районного суда города Архангельска от января 24года по 2013делу № 2-938/2012); Judgment of the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, 24 January 2013, No. 2014, No. 2-1496/2014Решение Ломоносовского ( районного суда города Архангельска от от января 30 2014года по делу № 2-424/2013); Judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Arkhangelsk, 30 January January 2014, No. 2-1045/2014Решение ( Октябрьского районного суда города Архангельска от января 23 89 года 2014по делу № 2-1496/2014); and Judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Arkhangels, 23 Решение Октябрьского районного суда города Архангельска от января года по делу № 2-1045/2014). 90 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 221 220 219 218 217 established inthelegislation”. in placesoftraditional leisure ofcitizens withchildren violates prohibitions attempt by the organiser to callfor tolerance towards sexual minorities(…) Golovinskiy“[a]n Moscowof Court District that, noting decision, this upheld Information Harmfulto their HealthandDevelopment”. On20May 2014,the it would violate Article 16oftheFederal law “OnProtection ofChildren from the City ofSevastopol refused permissionfor theassembly onthebasisthat and alsoonfascism andxenophobia. TheLeninskyDistrictAdministration of public awareness onhomophobia anddiscriminationagainst LGBT persons assemblies from goingahead.InSevastopol, anassembly proposed to raise In 2014,courtsinbothSevastopol andMoscow uphelddecisionsto prevent of purported possibleharmto children). other assemblies public were scheduled for the sametime (and notonthebasis This was despiterefusal theinitial of the assembly beingbasedonthefact that ing that: sion to hold an assembly protesting against thefederal law on propaganda, not In May Petersburg 2013, the St. CityCourtupheldadecision to refuse permis whom they sought are to unfounded.” support, based onthesexualin theassembliesandthose orientation oftheparticipants another,argumentsapplicant’s “the the Court concludedthat ofdiscrimination, interests andprotectionmorals, ofpublic those oftheminors”.including the CityAdministration]are lawfully motivated by theneedto secure public to allow theassembly was discriminatory because the“contested decisions [of homosexualrelations”. orientation”ual “distortedor a equivalenceof social notion of heterosexual and sex non-traditional of image attractive “an forming without and way scientific to provethey that soughtto disseminate informationLGBT about persons in a hibited under theArkhangelskLaw,Oblast of “dissemination goal of informationthe nature about of homosexuality” is pro courts, andeachrefusal was upheld,withthecourtsvariouslythe notingthat case, theorganiser of the assembly challengedtherefusal of permission in the 222

Головинского Judgment ofthe Golovinskiy DistrictCourtof Moscow, 30May 2014,No.2-2754/14 ( определение PetersburgAppellate Decision of the St. 22 May City Court, 2013, No. 33-18289/13 ( See JudgmentoftheOktyabrsky DistrictCourt ofArkhangels, 23January2014,above, note 216. Ibid., abrsky DistrictCourtofArkhangelsk, 30January 2014,above, note 216. of the OktyabrskySee Judgment District Court ofArkhangels,23 January 2014 andJudgmentoftheOkty Ibid., tial threat to the moral andmental development ofchildren. and lesbians (…)shallbeconsidered undesirable because ofitspoten An attempt to disseminate leaflets calling for tolerance towards gays Judgment oftheOktyabrsky DistrictCourtofArkhangelsk, 30 January2014. Judgment oftheOktyabrsky DistrictCourtofArkhangelsk, 27January2012.

Санкт-Петербургского

районного 218

суда Inone case, thecourtdid the refusalnot acceptthat

Москвы 222

городского

от 30 мая

суда 2014 217

от and that the organisers andthat had failed года 220 22

мая

по

делу 2013 №2-2754/14). года

по

делу 221 № 33-18289/13). Апелляционное - Решение 219 In - - - - -

The assembly in Moscow aimed to call for repeal of the Ryazan Oblast Law on justice or complicity? propaganda following the decision of the HRC in the case of Irina Fedotova v Russia.223 grounds to believe that its goals violated the prohibition of propaganda of “non-traditional The assemblysexual orientation”. was refused On on22 Januarythe basis 2014, that theits Tverskoynotification District gave Court of Moscow upheld this refusal, noting that the proposed assembly would violate public morals. The Court noted that it was clear that the organisers

given that they only proposed to hold the assembly in a place that was open addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: andintended freely to accessible influence and the whichpublic, was including used for minors, the leisure in relation activities to gay of familiesculture, and children. Finally, the Court concluded that the decision of the Moscow authorities demonstrated no discriminatory motives on the basis of sexual orientation, and that the organisers had incorrectly interpreted the judgment of the ECtHR in Alekseyev v Russia.224

A recent case concerned the denial of authorisation of a meeting to be held in St. Petersburg in May 2016 on the basis that the city authorities considered that demonstrate the peaceful intentions of LGBT individuals and their positive atti- the aim of the assembly – to call for tolerant attitudes to225 LGBT The individualsSestroretskiy and Dis to- trict Court of St. Petersburg agreed and rejected the organisers’ argument that thetude assembly towards wouldsociety not – violated involve theany ban form on of propaganda. dissemination of information among minors and that the assembly’s goals did not even mention any involvement of minors. The Court held that because the assembly was planned to take place in public, and that public spaces are open to children, this could not “exclude prop- children”.226 The Court added that the information which would be promoted wasaganda not by based LGBT on of acceptedtheir lifestyle traditional to an unidentified notions of familynumber and of people,marriage. including In the Court’s view, the legislative ban on such propaganda was not discriminatory because it “applies to everyone on an equal basis”.227

As can be seen from the above discussion, in a number of cases, even a protest against legislation prohibiting “homosexual propaganda” was itself regarded as such propaganda. The courts appear to act on a presumption that any public reference to LGBT issues is immoral and that all information about such issues is harmful. Two cases in Kostroma, in which judges made a distinction between dissemination of information as part of the advocacy efforts of LGBT activists and the prohibited “propaganda of homosexuality”, are an exception to the usual approach which equates dissemination of information with propaganda.

223 See discussion above, Part 1.7.4. 224 Judgment of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 22 January 2014, No. 2-1002/14 ( 22 2014 Решение Тверс- 225 когоJudgmentрайонного of the Sestroretskiyсуда Москвы Districtот января Court of St. Petersburg,года по делу 18 May№ 2-1002/14). 2016, No. 2a-925/2016 ( 18 2016 Решение 226 Ibid. Сестрорецого районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от мая года по делу № 2a-925/2016). 91 227 Ibid. 92 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 229 228 referredbyauthorities notification the prohibitionthe toof potential violations met theobjectives of the ruleof laworder andpublic events. during public The the course of themarch, therefore thewarning was preventive innature and in attentionattract to used be would tools specific of kind whatmarch the hold to notification the from establish to impossible was it that explained Court The non-tradi promote to sexualtional relationships amongminors did not violate the organisers’ rights. not responsibility their of organisers the notified that to holdprocessions. 31 oftheFederalcle Constitution to peacefully, assemble weapons, without and the event, thedecision was illegaland violated the organisers’ right under Arti to refuse to allowthe event hadnotproposed or time toa changeofplace hold because thedecision that of the Acting Head of the Administration of Kostroma The DistrictallowedCourt on 3Julyin part thecomplaint 2014. The Courtheld was notsuitable. authorities hadadutyto propose an alternativeif theoriginal location location organisers of event.the plannedpublic The organisers further the alleged that contested decision discriminated againstLGBT against persons, including the violate the requirements ofmorality. The organisers therefore believedthe that sons andto theissue of homophobia. These be consideredaims couldnot to the attention ofsocietyandtheauthoritiesto discrimination againstLGBT per District Court ofKostroma, arguingthe purpose of the eventthat was to attract The organisers of the march appealedagainst thisdecision in theSverdlovskiy alternative locationsfor theproposed march andmeeting. of these concerns, the Administrationit couldnotpropose concluded that any the proposed marchto couldlead attacks violent againstthe activists. view In Kostromathe that had informedpolice the Administrationproteststhat against it hadreceivedthat numerous petitionsagainst theproposed assemblies and late the federal banonpropaganda. Inaddition, the Administration emphasised tration further noted thegoalsof the assemblythat suggested itwouldthat vio the marchon propaganda.the ban theriskofviolating without march would takeTherefore place. noalternativecould beproposed location for therethat wouldchildrenbe throughoutthe city, wherewas it proposedthe that event was to takeon 1June2014, place which is International Children’s Day, and tion refused to agree to the meetingandmarch. It noted that theproposed fascismabout xenophobia.and 27 MayOn Kostroma 2014,the City Administra homophobia anddiscrimination ness againstabout LGBT individuals, andalso Kostroma, 50 with people expected to attend. The aim was to raiseaware public 2014. The march and themeetingwere scheduled to take placeinthecentre of of their intention to hold a Gay Pride march and asubsequentmeetingon1 June On 25 May 2014, gay rights activists notified the City Administration of Kostroma 231 230

Ibid Ibid Ibid. Свердловского of theSverdlovskiyJudgment DistrictCourtofKostroma,3 July 2014, No. 2-2904/2014 ( . .

районного 230 231 However, theCourtfoundof thedecisionthe part that

суда

Костромы

от 3 июля 2014 года

по

делу 229 №2-2904/2014). 228 The Adminis Решение ------on propaganda, but did not evaluate the proposed activities as propaganda of justice or complicity? - aganda was not the ground for refusal. The Court did not address the argument aboutnon-traditional the discriminatory sexual relationships nature of such in the a warning.affirmative.232 As such, the ban on prop

The Kostroma Oblast Court, which reviewed this judgment on appeal, did not agree with the District Court that the aims of the proposed assemblies had no bearing on the decision to refuse permission to hold them.233 The Oblast Court held: addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: Having agreed with the arguments of the Administration that it was impossible to ensure security of the march on 1 June 2014, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that there have been appeals of organisations and citizens to the administration of Kostroma calling for a ban on such events, as well as taking into account the fact that the personnel of law-enforcement bodies were busy to ensure the protection of public order during the festive events. (…) The mere existence of the risk is not sufficient for the prohibition of activities, and a preliminary assessment of the potential danger had not been carried out by the Adminis- tration. The Court had not been furnished with any data on the potential level of threat and the inability to neutralise it by all the methods provided for by law. The need to ensure public order during the festivities clearly did not exclude the possibility of providing the security of the march with a small number of participants (50 people).

There are no reasons to believe that the declared aim of the event violated the prohibition established by the Federal Law of 29 December 2010 № 436-FZ “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development” and the Federal Law of 24 July 1998 № 124-FZ “On Basic Guarantees Child Rights in the Russian Federation”. (…) The objectives of the march, declared in its notification, (…) do not evidence an intent to promote non-traditional sexual relationships. A reference to people of homosexual orientation as such is not propaganda. The legislative ban on propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors does not prevent holding public events in the manner prescribed by law, including open public debate about the social status of sexual minorities and their rights, without imposing their attitudes on minors. Evidence showing that the actual purpose of the public assemblies was different from the ones specified in the notification, and that it was aimed at the violation of the prohibitions established by federal law, was not presented.234

232 Ibid. 233 Appellate decision of the Kostroma Oblast Court, 8 September 2014, No. 33-1472/2014 ( 8 2014 Апелляционное 93 234 определениеIbid. Костромского областного суда от сентября года по делу № 33-1472/2014). 94 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 237 236 235 the freedom ofexpression andassembly ofLGBT personsandtheirsupport Russia hasanumberofrestrictive laws which are beingusedto impingeon 2.3.5 Court upheldthisdecision,notingthat: lovskiy DistrictCourt ofKostroma. the Code of Administrative Offences, a decision which was upheldintheSverd City Administrationthe assemblyconcluded that would violate Article6.21 of the rights of LGBT persons, and fighting intolerance towards LGBT persons. The City Administration refusing to allowan assembly raising aimedat awareness of However, in2015, theKostromaCourt upheld adecision Oblast of theKostroma ures were notpossible.Thejudgmentwas upheldonappeal. tive convenience, and was not sufficient to objectively indicate that security meas the issueofapproval ofpublicevents, guidedsolely by motives ofadministra relationto the activities activistsof the allowdid not the Administration to resolve ground for refusing TheCourt heldthatthenegative it. attitudeofthepublicin the Administration thatpossibleprotests against theassembly were alegitimate “non-traditional sexual relationships”. rejected theargument ofthecityauthoritiesthatassembly would promote tolerance towards sexual minorities.TheSverdlovskiy DistrictCourt ofKostroma sexualityperversion.a not is Grass hockey are”ballet ice and orderin to forcall toassemblystanding a hold statement:the disseminating of aim the with “Homo In asimilarcaseinKostroma in2014,thesameactivists were deniedpermission 238

определение Appellate decision of theKostroma2015, 19 JanuaryNo.33-51/2015 ( Court, Oblast Свердловского Judgment oftheSverdlovskiy District CourtofKostroma, 27 October 2014, No. 2-4309/2014 ( определение AppellateKostromathe of decision September1 ( 33-1401/2014 No. 2014, Court, Oblast Свердловского of theSverdlovskiyJudgment District CourtofKostroma,11 June2014, No. 2-2529/2014 ( Summary but alsoby international law. children, the protection ofwhich isrequired notonlyby Russian, sexual orientation, which can harmthe healthy development of law prohibits disseminationto minorsofinformation regarding permitted was grounds, notdueto discriminatory butbecause the of the judgmentbecause that the declared public events were not grounds ofsexual orientation, donotevidence the unlawfulness Federation which recognise asimpermissiblediscriminationon acts ofthe Constitutional andSupreme Courts ofthe Russian Rights andthe European Court ofHumanRights, aswell asthe Ministers ofthe Council ofEurope, the UNCommittee onHuman mendations ofthe Parliamentary Assemblyandthe Committee of References inthe [organiser’s] appealto the numerous recom

Костромского Костромского

областного областного

суда суда областного

областного

Костромы Костромы

суда

суда 237 238

от от On 19 January2015, OntheKostroma Oblast

235 от

от 27 11 1 Furthermore, theCourt disagreed with 19 сентября октября июня января 2014 2014 2014 2015 года года года года

по

по делу по

по

делу делу

делу 236 №2-2529/2014). №2-4309/2014). №33-1401/2014). №33-51/2015). Апелляционное Апелляционное - Решение Решение - - - - - ers. Most notably, the Russian anti-propaganda laws are blatantly discrimina- justice or complicity? tory and have been rightly criticised by various UN and European bodies.239 The approach of the courts to reviewing the application of these laws by the authorities is far from being in accordance with international and European human rights standards for the upholding of the right to enjoy both freedom of expression and assembly without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. While the courts state that they are restricting the application of the propaganda laws by interpreting them in accordance with the Federal Consti- tution and also international and European human rights standards, it is clear addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: that the courts are not properly assessing the necessity and proportionality of restrictions on expression and assembly imposed on the basis of the law. and the protection of children are accepted almost without question by courts, withJustifications no or very of littlerestrictions analysis which of the are links based between on public such morals,aims and family the restric values- tions put in place. Many of the courts demonstrate discriminatory attitudes - cations based on discriminatory attitudes under the guise of protecting public moralsthemselves; or the equating rights of LGBT children. relationships with immorality or accepting justifi

The decision of the Constitutional Court when asked to review the constitu- tionality of the federal anti-propaganda law is indicative of the problematic approach taken by the Russian courts. Instead of tackling stigma and prejudice, which often results in hate-motivated violence against LGBT individuals, the judgment of the Constitutional Court not only protected what is a discriminatory and pejorative law, but effectively suggested that such prejudices (“the lack of consensus in society in appraising persons with different sexual orientation”) are legitimate considerations for justifying restrictions on dissemination of information about sexual minorities to minors, even when such information seeks to educate minors on how to overcome such prejudices. Such an approach fails to take into account numerous recommendations of the UN240 and Council of Europe,241 which call on national authorities to take persons. The ECtHR addressed the issue of moral judgments in the context of thepositive right measures to private in life order in Smith to fight and prejudices Grady v the and United discrimination Kingdom,242 against which LGBT concerned a policy of instant dismissal from the armed forces once a person was

239 European Parliament, Resolution on the EU’s priorities for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sessions in 2016, 2015/3035(RSP)

, 2016, ParasConcluding 45-46; Office observations of the High on the Commissioner combined fourth for andHuman fifth Rights, periodic “UN reports rights of expertsthe Russian advise Federation Russian, UNDuma Doc. to CRC/C/RUS/CO/4-5, scrap bill on ‘homosexuality 25 February propaganda’”, 2014, Para 1 February 2013; Committee on the Rights of the Child,

240 25;See, see for above,example, note Committee 27; and see on above, the Rights note 95,of theParas Child, 10.5, above, 10.8. note 239, Para 25, which notes that the Committee “recommends that the State party repeal its laws prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality and ensure that children who belong to LGBTI groups or children from LGBTI families are not subjected to any forms of discrimination by raising the public’s awareness of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” 241 See above, note 33. 242 Smith and Grady v the United Kingdom, Applications No. 33985/96 and 33986/96, 27 September 1999, 95 Para 97. 96 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 247 246 245 244 243 repeated refusalof authoritiesto allowpride marches to takein Moscow place been criticised by theECtHR.In assembly for LGBT activists outside of the contextof the propaganda law has The approachRussianof the restricting authorities in right the to peaceful not proven. the impactof providing children withinformation onLGBT relationships was the protection ofchildrenlegitimate asa aimofthelaw, whenhad noted it that is particularlyIt Court wasthe Constitutional concerningthat prepared to accept Committee went onto note thatitwas: (LGBTI) persons, includingchildren, andchildren from LGBTI families.” the lawthat “encouragesof anddiscrimination thestigmatisation against (…) vations onRussia, theCommittee ontheRights oftheChildnoted itsconcern the propagandathat lawprotects children, initsmostrecent ConcludingObser Contrary to theargumentof theRussian authorities,accepted by thecourts, mittee reiterated itsviewinGeneral Comment34that: to “propaganda ofhomosexuality” asopposedto heterosexuality. objectivecriteria for restricting rightthe to freedom expressionof relationin found thattheRussian Government hadnotputforward any reasonable and sion concerningcharges laidundertheRyazan Oblastanti-propaganda law, tudes towards thoseofadifferent race, originorcolour”. justification for the differential treatment any more than similar negative atti tudes cannot of themselves be considered by the Court to amount to sufficient majority against ahomosexual andstated thatthese“negative minority” atti lative provisions embodying a“predisposed biasonthepartofaheterosexual age ofconsentfor sex between men.Inbothcases, theCourt criticisedlegis in “homosexual”,and as identified 249 248

See above, Part 2.3.2. Ibid. See Committee ontheRights oftheChild,above, note 239 Ibid. See above, note 95,Para 10.6. Ibid. S.L. vAustria , Para 10.5. , Para 44. ticular against underage LGBTI- rightsactivists. LGBTI community, including throughabuse andviolence, in par used lead to the targetingand ongoing theof persecution country’s propaganda of definitions vague the that concerned [P]articularly of humanrightsandthe principleofnon-discrimination. Any such limitations mustbeunderstood inthe lightofuniversality based onprinciplesexclusivelyderiving not fromtradition. asingle [L]imitations (…) forthe protectingpurpose of morals be must 249 , ApplicationNo.45330/99,9January 2003.

Alekseyev vRussia S.L. vAustria, , Para 24. 243 which concernedahigher , theECtHRfoundthe that 248 244 TheHRC, inadeci 246 245 TheCom - 247 The ------violated the right to peaceful assembly provided for by Article 11, the right to justice or complicity? an effective remedy pursuant to Article 13 and also the right to non-discrimination under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 11. Russia noted that the bans were aimed at the protection of public order given that the marches would lead to clashes with those opposed to them and the protection of public morals as allowing the parades would insult the feelings of religious believers. The Government claimed that there was no consensus among member states on the extent to which “homosexuality” should be accepted, and that celebration of it should take place in private, noting that they needed to be sensitive to the public addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: resentment of displays of “manifestation[s] of homosexuality”.250

The Court stated that it did not need to consider whether these aims were legitimate as the ban on pride marches was not necessary in a democratic society and therefore violated Article 11.251 In relation to the aim of public security, the Court reiterated that states have a duty “to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonst/rations to proceed peacefully.”252 The Court found that Russia had not adequately assessed the security risks to participants or attempted to mitigate these, but instead had simply banned the parades. It was also evident that any security concerns were secondary to the protection of public morals.253

In relation to the argument that the marches would infringe on public morals, the Court noted that the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly and other ECHR rights by minority groups is not “conditional on its being accepted by the majority”. If this were not the case, the rights of minority groups would become “merely theoretical”.254 The Court noted that the aim of the marches was to “promote respect for human rights and freedoms and to call for tolerance towards sexual minorities”255 and:

[T]hat it was not the behaviour or the attire of the participants that the authorities found objectionable but the very fact that they wished to openly identify themselves as gay men or lesbians, indi- vidually and as a group.256

The Court disagreed with the Government that there should be a wide margin of appreciation in such cases given the lack of consensus, noting that:

There is no ambiguity about the other member States’ recognition of the right of individuals to openly identify themselves as gay, lesbian or

250 See Alekseyev v Russia,

251 Ibid., Para 69. above, note 61, Paras 56–63. 252 Ibid., Para 73. 253 Ibid.,

254 Ibid., ParasPara 81. 77–78. 255 Ibid., Para 82. 97 256 Ibid. 98 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 262 261 260 259 258 257 whether theinterference isnecessaryandproportionate. sis of what is necessary in ademocratic society incorporates an examination of are provided for by law right to freedom of association may berestricted only when such restrictions peaceful assembly. Aswiththerights to freedom of assembly andexpression, the tects theright to freedom of associationwithothers together with theright to the rightto freedomothers”. ofassociation with the ECHR,Article11(1) In pro pean humanrights law. Article22(1) of the ICCPR provides that “everyone has The right to freedom of associationisprotectedinternational inboth and Euro 2.4 are neithernecessarynorproportionate. activists and persons LGBT facing restrictions the that finding arguments, such This is despite theHRC, theCRC andtheECtHRhaving resoundingly rejected are necessary to protectorder, public morals public and therights ofchildren. such restrictions,that those including enforced under the anti-propaganda law, ring to the argumentsforward put by authorities and theGovernment, namely acceptedwith courts inline rights human standards. Instead, courtsare defer and assembly ofLGBT persons and activists are notbeingreviewed by Russian the restrictionsIt is clear that placed ontherights to freedom of expression this would amountto discrimination, aswas thecasehere. reason for thedifference intreatmentis basedsolely onsexualorientation, then the margin of appreciation afforded to thestate isnarrow insuchcases.Ifthe be putforward for distinctions made in relation to sexualorientation, andthat relationIn to Article14,theCourtnotedparticularly that weighty reasons must necessary inademocratic society. relevantassessment ofthe acceptable on “an facts” werethe bans that and not The Court concluded that thedecision to ban thepride marches was notbased

9815/82, 8 July 1986, Paras 37–41. See also Human Rights Committee, Rights Human also See 37–41. Paras 1986, July 8 9815/82, and 97–98; Paras 1983, March 25 7136/75, and 7113/75 7107/75, Paras1981, 62–65; Young,James AndWebster v the United Kingdom, ICCPR, Article22(1);andECHR, 11(1). g?i=001-128180. 44092/12, 56717/12, Communicated Case, 10 October 2013, availableat: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/en Article 10,oftheECHR. with in conjuction federal and regional) violate the right to freedom of expression in Article10 and alsoArticle14, taken A Ibid. Ibid., Ibid., n application has beenmadeton application the Russiathat theECtHRalleging anti-propagandalaws (both to LGBT Organisations Freedom DenialofRegistration ofAssociation: , Paras 108–109. in particularby exercising their freedom ofpeaceful assembly. any other sexual minority, andto promote their rightsandfreedoms, Paras 86–87. Paras 83–84. Silver v the United Kingdom

and are necessary in ademocraticsociety. 258 See , Application Nos. 5947/72, , Application 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, Bayev andOthersv Russia 260 Application Nos. 7601/76 and 7806/77, Nos. 7601/76 and 13 AugustApplication

Lingens vAustria, 262 General Comment No. 31 [80], 31 No. Comment General 259 , Application No. 67667/09, , Application

257 261 Application No. Application The analy

- - - - - The applicability of the right to freely associate with others has been recognised justice or complicity? as including the formation of non-governmental associations.263 States are obli- gated to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to associate, particularly persons belonging to vulnerable groups and minorities or espousing minority and dissenting views, and human rights defenders.264 Although it has been recognised that the formation of associations embracing minority or dissenting views or beliefs may sometimes give rise to tensions, the Special Rappor- teur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has made

it clear that this does not negate the state’s duty to protect against interference addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: with the right to association.265 Both the HRC and the Committee of Ministers have stated that states should ensure freedom of association without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.266

The right to freedom of association is also protected in Russia through the Fed- to association (…) The freedom of public associations activities shall be guar- eralanteed.” Constitution; As in the caseArticle of the30(1) rights provides to freedom that “[e]veryone of expression shall and have assembly, the right the right to freedom of association may be limited only in the circumstances provided for in Article 55(3) of the Federal Constitution.267

Since 2005, at least seven LGBT organisations have been denied registration as legal entities in Russia. These entities are: Rainbow House (Tyumen), which - made three attempts to obtain registration; LGBT Organisation “Rakurs” (Arkhan appealedgelsk); Movement the denial for of Marriage registration Equality in the (Moscow); courts. Other Pride than House in SochiArkhangelsk, (Krasnodar the casesRegion); demonstrate and LGBT that,Sports far Association from carefully (Moscow). considering On five whether occasions, restrictions LGBT activists on the right to freedom of association are strictly necessary, the approach of the courts formation of LGBT associations is contrary to national security and public morals is to apply discriminatory and, at times illogical, justifications to conclude that the

2.4.1– going Rakurs so far as (Arkhangelsk) to label such organisations as extremist.

In 2010, an Arkhangelsk NGO “Rakurs”, which was originally set up as a women’s organisation, decided to change its charter to become Arkhangelsk Regional

The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/ Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, Para 6. 263 Ramazanova and Others v Azerbaijan, Application No. 44363/02, 1 February 2007, Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v Azerbaijan Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assemblyPara and 55; of association, Maina Kiai, , Application No. 37083/03, 8 October 2009; and Human

264 Human Rights Council,UN The Doc. rights A/HRC/20/27, to freedom of21 peaceful May 2012, assembly Paras and51–52. of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/L.7, 20 September 2013, Para 2. 265 See Human Rights Council, above, note 263, Para 64. 266 Human Rights Council, Report submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity 99

267 See above, Part, UN2.3. Doc. A/HRC/19/41, 17 November 2011, Para 5; see above, note 37, Paras 9–12. 100 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 273 272 271 270 269 268 Asthefollowingimpact. analysis shows, ithasnotledother courts to adoptthe Furthermore, unfortunatelyCourt hashadalimited thedecision of theOblast rights law andtheECHR. rightthe of to freedomprotectedof association international under human either ofthosethings.Accordingly, while thedecisioniswelcome, itfalls short implying thatitwould belegitimate to deny registration ofaNGOwhich did family” orengage in“propaganda ofnon-traditional sexual relationships”, recognising thatright to theextent thatthegroup didnot“deny therole of onlyby finding its qualified Court the said, That persons. other as association criminatory,it gelsk didnotexplicitly criticise thedenialofregistration ofRakurs asdis LGBTan of ation group was recognised. Although ArkhanCourtin Oblast the associ of freedom the which in court Russian a by decision first the was This the ECHRorFederal Constitution. no legitimate basis for restricting theright to freedom of assembly enshrined in relationships” or denial of the role of family insociety. organisation wasto planning engage inpropaganda of “non-traditional sexual support to suchvictims.Further, theCourtfound there was noevidencethe that tims ofhomophobiaanddiscrimination, and providing socialandpsychological the protectiondignity, ofhuman the protection oftherights andfreedoms of vic the organisation’s that istry ofJusticeandtheDistrictCourt, were goals aimedat of registrationthe denial unlawful. Court found,The Oblast contrary to theMin quently heard the case on appeal quashed the District Court’s finding judgment, Court of Arkhangelsk. The decision of theMinistry Justice was upheldby theOktyabrskiy District denial oftherole offamily insociety. sexualindividuals”, propaganda of “non-traditional sexualorientation” andthe the incitementat of social hatred and discord between “heterosexualand homo particular,the organisation’s theMinistryofJusticeheldthat goalswere aimed nature”Federalthe defined in as Law Countering“On Extremist Activities”. Justice Lesbian, Gay, Bisexualand Transgender Persons, “Rakurs”.Ministry of The local Non-GovernmentalOrganisation of Social, Psychologicaland Legal Support to 274

Ibid определение 1NovemberAppellate DecisionoftheArkhangelsk OblastCourt, 2010,No.33-5258/2010( Ibid Ibid Октябрьского Judgment oftheOktyabrskiy DistrictCourt ofArkhangelsk, 22September 2010,No.2-3629/2010( See Federal Law “OnCountering Extremist Activities”, above, note 38. sia. The Ministry of Justiceisthebody responsible for the registrationnon-commercial ofall entities inRus . . . 268 denied registration to theneworganisation becauseof its “extremist

Архангельского

районного de facto 271

суда recognised LGBT that activists rightsame the had to However, theArkhangelskCourt whichOblast subse

областного

Архангельска

суда 270

273 от

от 22

1 ноября сентября 2010 2010 года года 272

по Accordingly, there was

по делу

делу №33-5258/2010). №2-3629/2010). Апелляционное Решение 269 In 274 ------same approach when considering cases related to the freedom of association of justice or complicity? LGBT organisations elsewhere in Russia.

2.4.2 Movement for Marriage Equality (Moscow)

In the same year that the Arkhangelsk Oblast Court made its decision in the Rakurs case, a different narrative developed in Moscow. In January 2010, the Moscow Department of the Ministry of Justice denied registration to the non-commercial organisation Movement for Marriage Equality. According to Article 3 of the Move- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: ment’s Charter, it was set up to offer:

[I]formational services to overcome discrimination, defamation and violations of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as to promote compliance with human rights in the marriage sphere and to achieve marriage equality for LGBT individuals in the Russian Federation.275

The Department stated that its decision to deny registration was made pursuant to the Law “On Non-Commercial Organisations”, which provides that registration may be denied if statutory or other documents submitted for registration contradict the Federal Constitution or other legislation.276 In particular, the Depart- ment considered that the aims of the proposed organisation violated Article 2(2) of the Law “On Non-Commercial Organisations”, which provides that non-commercial organisations can only be established for achieving social, charitable, health care, development of sports, satisfying the spiritual or other non-pecuniary needscultural, of educational,citizens, protections scientific of or rights administrative and lawful goals,interests as wellof citizens as for andthe aimsorgani of- at achieving public good.277 In addition, the Department explained that the aim of thesations, organisation conflict management, to achieve legal provision recognition of legal of same-sexaid and for marriages other purposes contradicted aimed Article 12 of the Family Code of Russia, which provides that one of the conditions for entering into marriage is the mutual voluntary consent of a man and woman.278

On 20 July 2010, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow upheld the Department’s decision. The Court held that, while the law allows for establishing a non-commercial organisation for any purpose aimed at achieving public good, such purpose cannot seek to achieve aims known to contradict public order and public morals.279 The Court further held that Article 10 of the Civil Code prohibited actions

275 Charter of the Movement for Marriage Equality, Article 3 ( “ Устав Автономной некоммерческой 276 организацииFederal Law правовых и социальных услуг Движения за брачное равноправие”). “On Non-Commercial Organisations”, 12 January 1996, No. 7-FZ, Article 23.1 (Статья 23.1 277 ФедеральныйDecision of the закон Main отDepartment 12 января for 1996 Moscow года № of 7-ФЗ the Ministry “О некоммерческих of Justice, 12 организациях”). January 2010 ( 12 2010 ). Решение 278 ГлавногоIbid. управления Минюста России по городу Москве от января года 279 Judgment of Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow, 20 July 2010, No. 2-2415/2010 ( 101 20 2010 РешениеГагаринского районного суда Москвы от июля года по делу № 2-2415/2010). 102 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 286 285 284 283 282 281 280 grounds, by theKrasnodar Regional Departmentof the Ministryof Justice on technical towardsattitudes LGBT sportspersons. homophobia insportandtodevelopingaimed at campaigns launch positive House in Sochi aimed to promote tolerance in sports, including the need to fight registration to thenon-commercial organisation, Pride House in Sochi. Pride In 2011, the Krasnodar Regional Department oftheMinistry Justice denied 2.4.3 upheld thejudgmentofDistrictCourt. argumentswere addressed by which, theappellate inDecember 2010, Court, their rights, includingthrough freedom of assembly. However, noneof these treatiesnational which recognise theright of sexualminorities to advocate for generalof theFederalclause) equality Constitution aswell as numerous inter establishing anorganisation advocating for LGBT rights violated Article 19 (the registrationwas discriminatory.particular, In they arguedon the ban that arguingto appealed The applicants the denialof that theMoscow CityCourt, recognition ofsame-sex relationships. neither the FederalConstitution nor international legalobligations require the Court of16Novemberdecision of theConstitutional 2006 which concludedthat traditionaling family values. “decrease [the]birthrate”contradictbecause thosegoals morals, public includ The Court further notedthe achievement that of the organisation’s goalsmay order or publicmorals norwhat themoral standard was. marriages andagainst discrimination against LGBT individuals violated public izens. sought to disseminate information, itmay have a“massideologicalimpact”oncit bad, viceandvirtuesoon.” to sexual minorities,which violates prevalent notionsofgoodandevil, goodand and recognition, ofsame-sex unions,increase ofthenumber ofcitizensbelonging contradicted publicmorals“they because are at propaganda aimed ofsupport, Court’s view, aimssuchasthosesetoutinArticle 3oftheMovement’s Charter that hadthesolepurposeofharmingothersorabusingother’s rights. 287

(“Pride House”)and inconsistencies withintheorganisation’s charter. The technical grounds referred to by theMinistryofJustice includedtheunlawfulforeignusage ofa term тивного Charter ofthePride House Sochi, Article 3( определение 20December 2010, No. 33-39388/2010 Appellate( Decision oftheMoscowCity Court, Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Ibid Ibid. 282 Pride House in Sochi (KrasnodarPride HouseinSochi Region) . . TheCourt didnotexplain why advocacy for legal recognition ofsame-sex 287

общественного thePervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar, which reviewed the

Московского

движения

городского 283 “ 281 To support its finding, the Court referred to a to referred Court the finding, its support To Прайд TheCourt noted thatbecausetheorganisation

суда

хаус

Устав от 284 20 286 в

Although itsregistrationwas denied 285 Сочи”). декабря Краснодарского 2010

года

краевого

по

делу

№33-39388/2010). регионального Апелляционное 280 In the Inthe

спор- - - -

Department’s decision, held that the goals of the organisation were contrary to justice or complicity? public morals and state sovereignty.

The District Court considered that the awareness raising activities of the organ- fundamentals of public morals: isation would have a “mass ideological influence” on citizens, contradicting the Such goals of the movement as promoting an understanding of the

need to combat homophobia and the creation of positive attitudes addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: towards LGBT sportsmen contradict the fundamental public morals because they violate the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, vice and virtue. These goals contradict state policies in the sphere of protection of family, motherhood and childhood, the movement’s activities lead to propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation, which may undermine [the] security of Russian society and the state [and] incite social and religious hatred and strife, which is also an element of [the] extremist nature of the activities. Moreover, [these goals] can undermine [the] sovereignty of [the] territorial integrity of Russia by reducing its population.288

The appeal against this judgment was rejected by the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar on 4 April 2012 as it was made out of time.

2.4.4 Rainbow House (Tyumen)

In 2005, a group of activists in Tyumen created “Rainbow House” as a regional public association with the aim of defending the rights of LGBT individuals. It has since tried unsuccessfully on three separate occasions to become a registered organisation. expert opinion from the Tyumen Institute of Legal Studies of the Interior Min- istryOn its of first Russia attempt, on the in 2005,compliance the local of theregistration proposed authority organisation’s commissioned goals with an anti-extremism legislation. The Institute’s opinion, delivered on 31 July 2006, read in part as follows:

[P]ropaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation by [the second applicant] may qualify as extremist activity because the realisation of the aims mentioned above involves not only protection of rights and legitimate interests of citizens with non-traditional sexual orientation, but also attempts to increase the number of such citizens by converting those who, without such propaganda, would have retained a traditional sexual orientation.289

288 Judgment of the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar, 20 February 2012, No. 2-1161/2012 ( 20 2012 Решение 289 ПервомайскогоAleksander Zhdanovрайонного and Rainbowсуда КраснодараHouse v Russiaот, Applicationфевраля No. 12200/08,года по делу lodged № 32-1161/2012). May 2008, State- 103

ment of Facts, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113100. 104 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 296 295 294 293 292 291 290 tration onthebasis of a numberof reasons,the organisation’s including that as theregistering authorityfor non-commercial entitiesin 2008, denied regis ever,the Tyumen of theMinistryJustice,whichDepartment took over powers In 2011, an attempt was madeto register the organisation for a third time. How a judicialdeclaration thattheorganisation was extremist. totion extremist be breachedhad not so theauthority and any requirementfor extremism intheorganisation’sactuallydid not but goals declare theorganisa tered. Further, although thedecision authority foundof thelocal indicationsof lawfulas theorganisation tocontinue not could operateregisbeing without through twoof whichboth appeals, decisionwas oftheauthority concludedthat technicalnoting also and sation grounds for refusal. the registrationwith authority again the extremistciting nature oftheorgani A second attempt by Rainbow House to register in 2007 was again unsuccessful, ment onappeal. when itappliedfor registration. had notbeensubmitted to thelocalregistration authorityby Rainbow House However, theDistrictCourt refused to considerthisexpert opinionbecauseit cluded thattheproposed organisation didnotpursue any extremist goals. ers ofRainbow House commissionedanalternative expert opinion,which con associations, whereas Rainbow House hadnever beenregistered. Thefound rejected becausetheCourtconsidered thatruleappliedonly to registered that anassociationcouldonlybe declared extremist bya judicialdecisionwas to have been justified, lawful and well-reasoned. authority,the it of finding decision the verbatimrepeated and Institute the of cow which, initsdecisionon26October 2007referred to theexpert opinion Service oftheMinistryJusticeandthenTaganskiy District Court ofMos decisionwasity’s unsuccessfully challengedbefore theFederal Registration refused theorganisation’s registration on29December2006. presented adangerto Russia’s nationalsecurity. Accordingly, theauthority prohibited by theFederal Law “OnCountering Extremist Activities” this expert opinionandopinedthatRainbow House pursued extremist goals The localregistration authorityaccepted andendorsedtheconclusionsof 297

Ibid. isation to disposeofitsproperty. the articlesof association andthat unlawfullyhad notbeenstapled authorised the president of the organ Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid See above, note 289. therefore notclearwhich provision ofthislaw was relied uponby theregistration authority. advocacy as falling under the definition of “extremism”, even if it is interpreted in the broadest sense. It is See FederalLaw Countering“On Extremist Activities”, above, note 38. Thelawdoes not mentionLGBT . The authority also referred to proceduralirregularities including thattheform withtheapplication, . . . . 295

294 TheMoscow City Court upheldthe judg 292 Rainbow House’s argument 296 Thisdecision was upheld 297 291 Theauthor 290 and 293 ------goals contradicted public order and public morals.298 The founders appealed justice or complicity? the decision arguing that the organisation’s aims were in full compliance with Russian laws on non-commercial organisations, and that the refusal discriminated against persons of “homosexual orientation” contrary to Article 19 of the Federal Constitution, as it prohibited dissemination of any views with regard to “homosexuality” or advocacy for the rights of LGBT aimed at overcoming discrimination against the LGBT minority.299

The denial of registration on the grounds of a violation of public morals was addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: found unlawful by the Central District Court of Tyumen, which noted the relevance of Article 11 of the ECHR.300 The Court did not address the discrimina- violate public morals, the Court did not allow the organisation to be registered becausetion issue it advancedaccepted theby the argument applicants. of the Despite Department finding of the the organisation Ministry of didJustice not that the organisation’s proposed name did not specify the nature of its activities. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Oblast Court, which did not address the applicant’s arguments that an alleged technical discrepancy in the organisation’s name was upheld by the District Court as a pretext to justify de facto discrimination against them because LGBT individuals were the pri- 301 As a result, Rainbow House has never acquired legal personhood. mary beneficiaries of the organisation. 2.4.5 Summary

Although there has been recognition (both explicitly and implicitly) by the courts that LGBT organisations are permitted to form, the courts have interpreted the right to freedom of association extremely narrowly to deny registration to such organisations in practice. It is particularly concerning that courts are willing to conclude that advocating for same-sex marriage or other rights for LGBT persons violates public morals, family values or risks national have been considered extremist. The denial of registration to non-governmen- talsecurity entities – toadvocating the extent the that idea human of recognition rights activities of same-sex of LGBT marriages organisations demonstrates the far-reaching effects of the legal reasoning of the Constitutional Court in LGBT cases. Not only are lesbian and gay couples denied legal recognition of their family relationships (see Part 2.5 below), they are banned from promoting the idea of equality and non-discrimination in respect of such relationships. Such an approach clearly contravenes the requirements of strict necessity and proportionality for any restrictions on the right to freedom of association to accord with international and European human rights law.

298 Decision of the Tyument Oblast Department of the Ministry Justice, 20 November 2010 ( 20 2010 ). Решение Управ- 299 ленияApplicationМинюста to theРоссии Centralпо DistrictТюменской Court областиof Tyument,от 23ноября March 2011,года No. 2-1529/2011 ( , Заявление в 300 ЦентральныйJudgment of theрайонный Central Districtсуд Тюмени Court of Tyument,дело № 2-1529/2011). 1 March 2011, No. 2-1529/2011 ( 1 2011 Решение Централь- 301 ногоDecisionрайонного of the Tyumenсуда Тюмени Oblast отCourt,марта 20 April 2011,года поNo.делу 33-1981/2011 № 2-1529/2011). ( 105 20 2011 Определение Тюменского облатного суда от апреля года по делу № 33-1981/2011). 106 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 306 305 304 303 302 orientation orgenderidentity. for hisprivate andfamily life”. Thisright isheldby allpeopleregardless ofsexual in asimilarway, providing inArticle8(1)that“[e]veryone hastheright to respect tion onthebasisofsexual orientation.” ensureto everyone rightsthe recognised by Covenant…withoutthe discrimina obligation…to legal a “have states that emphasised specifically has observations tion inaccessingalltherights undertheICCPR, andinanumberofitsconcluding Human Rights Committee hasexpressly noted theimportanceofnon-discrimina ence” andthateveryone mustbeprotected by law from suchinterference. The arbitrary orunlawful interference withhisprivacy, family, homeorcorrespond level.pean ICCPR Article17ofthe provides that“[n]ooneshallbesubjected to The right to private andfamily life isprotected atboththeinternational and Euro 2.5 for discriminatory violationsoftheright to freedom ofassociation. courts haseffectively reinforced this vulnerabilityby failingto provide redress vulnerableto restrictions on theirfreedom of association.Theapproach ofthe community byLGBT theauthoritiesmeansthat organisations are particularly ed. in suchawaythe right that to freedom of association is being severely limit organisationstal through the“Foreign AgentsLaw”, rightly criticised forrestrictions placing on theoperation ofnon-governmen stigmatise thework of LGBT organisations”. association hasstatedthe anti-propaganda that laws intimidate and “obstruct, RapporteurThe Special rightsthe on to freedomassembly ofpeaceful of and to freedom ofassociationhascontinued. anti-propagandalaw, show highlythe that problematic approach courtsthe of pages, andthecharges against itsadministrator MsKlimova for violatingthe The recent courtdecisionssanctioningtheprohibition ofChildren-404 web 307

305 Peck vUnited Kingdom Observations; Austria, UNDoc.CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4, Para. 8,30October 2007. tee, cluding Chile Observations: CO/3,18 December 2006, Para.25. Similarobservations wereRights madein:Human Committee, Human Rights Committee, ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13323&LangID=E. environmentfor NGOsandrights defenders is unacceptable”, 14May 2013,http://www. accessibleat: United Nations,Office of theHigh Commissioner forRights, Human “Russia: increasingly hostile конодательные актыРоссийской Федерации”) No. 129-FZ FederalLaw of association,MainaKiai RightsHuman Council, These decisionsare discussed indetailabove, see,pp.75–82. The combination of thislaw Thecombination together discrimination against with the LGBT Family Life Discrimination againstDiscrimination LGBT Persons inPrivate and Concluding SanMarino Observations:

( Федеральный закон от 23.05.2015 от закон Федеральный , “On amendments of “Onsome legislative actsof the Russian Federation” , App.No.44647/98, 28January2003,Para. 58. Reporttheof Special Rapporteuron the torights freedompeaceful of assembly and , UNDoc. , UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL.CO/5, Para. 16, 18 May 2007; Human Rights Commit Rights Human 2007; May 18 16, Para.CCPR/C/CHL.CO/5, Doc. UN , Concluding United StatesObservations: ofAmerica, A/HRC/29/25/Add.3 307 In its jurisprudence on Article 8 in tandem with Initsjurisprudence onArticle8intandemwith , UN Doc. CCPR/C/SMR/CO/2,Doc. UN , July31 Para.2008, Concluding 7; 306 № 129-ФЗ “О внесении изменений в отдельныев изменений за внесении “О 129-ФЗ № . 302 Similarly, theECHR protects theright , 10June2015,Para 439. 303 Inaddition,Russia hasbeen 304 which has beenenforced UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/ , 23 May 2015, Con ------the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14, the Court has considered the justice or complicity? relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity and issues such as legal recognition of relationships, custody and adoption.308 The ECHR only allows for limitations on the right to family and private life that are necessary in a democratic society in the pursuance of a legitimate aim.309

The clearest statement of international best practice on the appropriate interpretation of the right to private and family life in international human rights law, is set out in the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Yogy- akarta Principles).310 and family life: Principle 6 and Principle 24 which respectively provide: There are two principles that specifically relate to private Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is entitled to the enjoyment of privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference, including with regard to their family, home or corre- spondence as well as to protection from unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation. The right to privacy ordinarily includes the choice to disclose or not to disclose information relating to one’s sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as decisions and choices regarding both one’s own body and consensual sexual and other relations with others.

Everyone has the right to found a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Families exist in diverse forms. No family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members.

It is clear, therefore, that as a matter of international best practice, states must ensure the rights to private and family life for LGBT persons without discrimination. International law has, however, conferred varying levels of protection on in question. LGBT persons in the field of private and family life, according to specific issues 2.5.1 Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships

As outlined above, it is clear that LGBT individuals have the right to respect for their private life and family relationships, including their same-sex relationships. However, the scope of this right in the context of the legal recognition of the HRC and the ECtHR. their relationships, unfortunately remains contentious in light of the findings of

308 Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal, App. No. 33290/96 E.B. v France, App. No. 43546/02, 22 January 2008. Application No. 30141/04, 24 June 2010; 309 ECHR, Article 8(2). , 21 December 1999; 310 The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles developed in 2006 and endorsed by numerous experts and human rights defenders. Principle 1 states that: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Human beings of all sexual orientations and gender identities are entitled to the full enjoy- 107 ment of all human rights.” 108 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 314 313 312 311 marriage, thevoluntarywomanof the and consent oftheman entering into it, of the Family Code of the Russian Federation provides “to enter that, into a The Federalon therightConstitution issilent to marry.However, Article12(1) dom from discrimination. free fulfil to has state the obligations the satisfy can concerned individuals the ognition which creates no distinctions based solely onthesexualorientation of rightshuman adjudicators recogniseonly that legal a regime ofrelationshiprec ence to discriminatory Accordingly, attitudes. mattera be must it before oftime tion does not permit differences in treatment which are only justifiable by refer different-sexmatterAs a couples. practice, ofbest the right to non-discrimina rightto non-discrimination requiresthey that treated be inthesameway as the samerecognitionnot but asdifferent-sexfailscouples, to recognisethe that The Court’s approach of providing same-sex coupleswithsome recognition, obligation onStates to provide legalrecognition of same-sex relationships. committedstable in a relationship” lacked asitfailed content, to “provide for the core needs relevantto acouple The Court noted the protectionthat afforded to same-sex relationships in Italy its recent decisionin of the state to enable same-sex couplesto have their relationships recognised. In the ECHR,ithasrecently takenstepimportant an the obligationsout insetting under marry to right a have couples same-sex that find to declined repeatedly ships severaltimes over decade. Although thecourse of thelast theCourthas The ECtHR hasconsidered the issue of legalrecognition of same-sex relation provide legal recognition ofsame-sex relationships. the Committee on Economic, SocialandCulturalRights hascalledonstates to marriage. Elsewhere, though notadvocating recognition of same-sex marriage, the HRC, the ICCPR neither prevents nor requires states to legislate for same-sex between amanandwoman wishingto marry each other”. cle 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognise as marriage only theunion arti from stemming parties States of obligation treaty “the that finding 2002, The HRC has only considered the recognition of same-sex relationships once in 316 315

See above, note 313,Para 185. Ibid., Ibid. Oliari andOthers vItaly See HumanRights Council,above, note 1,Para 67. Joslin vNewZealand , Para 165. need for legal recognition andprotection oftheir relationship. relevantly similarsituationto different-sex couples asregards their enteringinto stable, committed relationships, and that they are ina [S]ame-sexcouples areas capablejust asdifferent-sexcouples of Para 172. , CommunicationNo.902/1999,UN Doc.A/57/40at214,17July 2002,Para 8.2. , ApplicationNos.18766/11and36030/11, 21July 2015. Oliari andOthers vItaly 315 andfoundpositivea Article 8places that , 313 theECtHRreiterated that: 312

311 Thus,intheviewof 314 316 ------and their reaching the marriageable age, shall be necessary.”317 In addition, the justice or complicity? Family Code provides that civil marriage, that is a marriage registered with a civil status registration department, is the only legally recognised form of family union in Russia.318 There are no alternative forms of legal recognition of relationships available in Russia, such as domestic partnership, and therefore no ability for either same-sex or different sex relationships to be legally recognised outside of civil marriage.

- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: itly explained that de facto relationships without state registration, regardless of theirThis positionduration has or beenthe presence confirmed of mutualby the Constitutional children, should Court, not whichbe considered has explic as marriage in a legal sense.319 The Court went on to say that cohabitation of a man and a woman therefore has no legal consequences.320 It follows based on this reasoning of the Court that cohabitation or a stable union321 of two persons of the same-sex has no legal consequences, including those analogous to marriage.

The lack of any legal recognition of same-sex relationships results in the inabil- couples are provided by the state. For example, they cannot access state hous- ity of LGBT couples to access the significant rights and benefits which married only.322 Similarly they are not considered to be heirs under inheritance laws,323 ing programs and financing programs, which are available324 They toalso married cannot couples obtain and they cannot benefit from certain tax privileges.

317

The Family Code of the Russian Federation, No. 223-FZ, 29 December 1995 Article 12 (Семейный кодекс 318 РоссийскойIbid., Article 1.Федерации, № 223-ФЗ, от 29 декабря 1995 г). 319

subsidisedDecision of housing the Constitutional payments issued Court, by 17 the May Ministry 1995, No.of Regional 26-O (Определение Development Конституционногоof Russia, No. 58 and СудаMin- Российской Федерации от 17 мая 1995 года № 26-О). This is explicitly confirmed in the Joint Order on

istry of Health and Social Development of Russia, No. 403, 26 May 2006, Para 41 (Приказ Минрегиона России № 58, Минздравсоцразвития России № 403 от 26 мая 2006 года “Об утверждении Методических рекомендаций по применению Правил предоставления субсидий на оплату 320 жилогоDe facto помещенияmarriage concluded и коммунальных before 8 July услуг”). 1944 is an exception to this, see Decision of the Constitutional - marriedCourt, 17 different-sex December 2009, couple, No. which 1665-O-O is in the (Определение case of assisted Конституционного reproductive technologies, Суда РФ a от law 17 which декабря was passed2009 года several № 1665-О-О). years after Therethe decision is also of at the least Constitutional one instance Court. in which See below,legal rights note 327.are granted to an un 321 The ECtHR has recognised that cohabitation is not a necessary pre-requisite to the existence of a stable union or such unions requiring protection. See above, note 313, Para 169. 322 December 2010, No. 1050, Subprogramme “Provision of housing to young families”, Appendix 4, Para Decision of the Russian Government “On Federal Targeted Programme ‘Housing’ for 2015 – 2020”, 17

17 (Постановление Правительства РФ от 17 декабря 2010 года № 1050 “О федеральной целевой 323 программеIn accordance “Жилище” with Article на 2015 1142 - of2020 the годы”). Civil Code, rightful heirs include children, spouse and parents.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part III), 26 November 2001, No. 146-FZ (Гражданский кодекс 324 Российской Федерации (часть третья) от 26 ноября 2011 года № 146-ФЗ). Spouses pay half the state fee for obtaining a certificate of inheritance in accordance with Article 333.24 109 giftof the tax Taxin accoradance Code of the with Russian Article Federation 217 of the (partsame 1),code. 31 July 1998, No. 146-FZ (“Налоговый кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая)” от 31 июля 1998 года № 146-ФЗ). They are also exempt from 110 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 330 329 328 327 326 325 of parents to care for and raise their children, “correspond to international ily,motherhood, fatherhood childhood, and provisions oftheFederal Constitution onstate protection andsupportfor fam man andawoman. TheCourt supported thisconclusionby notingthatthe marriage, includingby requiring thatmarriagewas entered into between a competenceits of scope the when determining forconditions the entering into ConstitutionalThe Courtconcludedthatthefederal legislature acted within and freedoms asamanandcitizen. no influence on the level of recognition, and guarantees, of the applicant’s rights The Court held (without explanation)that thedenialof same-sex marriage had promotion, supportor recognition of unions between persons of the samesex. adopted by theRussian Federationrequire thestate to create conditions for the ing thatneithertheFederal Constitutionnor the internationallegal obligations whichallowthem to dismissed stat his claim, Court, marryintheConstitutional fortion entering into marriage. Code requiredvoluntary themutual consent ofamanandwoman asacondi Ostankinskiy District Court inMoscow,the Family notingthat which upheld it, a marriage hadtheir denied. but application They appealedthisdecision to the crimination against same-sexpartners in2006. A gaysought couple to register dis as Court Constitutional Russian the in challenged first was marriages sex gain legalrecognition oftheir relationship.of legal The lack recognition ofsame- There have beenanumberof cases in which same-sex coupleshave sought to technologies asacouple,anoptionopenonly to different-sex couples. gency room in hospital. informationmedical their partner about shall beprotected by theState”. family the and childhood, and “Maternity 38(1), Article ensured”; be shall (…) childhood and paternity Federalthe RussianArticle 7(2), Constitution,“In Federation(…) state supportfor thefamily, maternity, Ibid Семейного кодекса Российской12 (Определение Федерации”). статьи 1 496-O пунктом прав конституционных No. его нарушение на 2006, Мурзина Э. гражданина November жалобы 16 Russia, of Court рассмотрению к принятии г.в отказе2006 КонституционногоСуда ноября “Об 16 от496-О № РФ Constitutional the of Decision See of assisted reproductive technology onthebasisofherinformed consentto medicalintervention”. basis ofinformedtheir mutual consent to medicalintervention. Asingle woman is also entitledto theuse both married an, and unmarried, have theright to theuseofassisted reproductive technology onthe здоровья в граждан Российской Федерации” от 21 ноября 2011 года № 323-ФЗ) “a man and a wom Federation”,Russian the охраны in основах “Об закон (Федеральный 323-FZ, No. November2011, 21 cou different-sexaccordanceIn ples. Article 55(3) of Federal with unmarried Law the Fundamentals“On Careof Health ofCitizens to applies also that benefits few the of one is this that noted be should It терапии”). и интенсивной № 15-1/10/1-2853 “О правилах посещения родственниками пациентов в отделениях реанимации visiting the relatives of patients in intensive care unit” (Письмо Минздрава России от 30 мая 2016 года See Letter oftheMinstryHealthCare ofRussia of30May 2016 no. 15-1/10/1-2853 the rulesof “On vourable prognosis healthinformation shallbeprovided to thepatientorhisherspouse. unfa an of case in 323-ФЗ) года№ 2011 ноября 21 отРоссийской Федерации” в граждан здоровья охраны основах “Об закон (Федеральный 323-FZ, No. 2011, NovemberFederation”, 21 Russian the In accordance withArticle22(3) ofFederalLaw the Fundamentals“On of HealthCare ofCitizens in . 326 Inaddition,they cannot access assisted reproductive 328 One of the men then challenged the refusalchallenged of thementhen One to 329

325 or attend asnext-of-kinemer in an 330 and on the equal rightequal the on and dutyand 327 ------treaties, which require states to protect the family as the core unit essential justice or complicity? for the wellbeing of all its citizens, especially children.”331 The Court continued on to say that both the Federal Constitution and international legal norms provide that one of the aims of the family is “child-bearing and raising children”.332 Taking into account “national traditions, which understand marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman”, the Court held that the legal protection afforded to families is based on the principles of the “voluntary nature of a marital union between a man and a woman, and the priority given to a family upbringing of children and care for the development and wellbeing of chil- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: dren”.333 with Article 23 of the ICCPR, the right to enter into marriage is recognised for men Theand Courtwomen, further and supportedthat Article its 12 findings of the byECHR noting provides that, in for accordance the right to marry and to found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.334

There are two key points to note from the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. Firstly, the Court did not explicitly speak in negative terms about same- sex relationships. Rather, its decision appears to rest on an implicit reference to the margin of appreciation of the State (which it refers to as the competence of the federal legislature). Secondly, it may be assumed that in the Court’s view, the State guarantees the legal recognition of marriage because this institution is aimed at protecting the family, which, in turn, exists for child-bearing and providing care to children. The Court remained silent on how such a biological conceptualisation of marriage can protect families who cannot or do not want to have children. Nor did the Court explain why granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would undermine the family role in caring for children.

Since the 2006 decision of the Constitutional Court, there have been several attempts by same-sex couples to challenge the denial of marriage licences through ordinary courts. In all such cases, the denial of registration of same-sex marriage was upheld with reference to the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. For exam-

Lipetsk Oblast, the plaintiffs argued that, under Russian law, being of the same sex wasple, innot a listedcase filedamong by the a lesbian obstacles couple for marriage before the and Gryazinskiy that the denial City of Court a marriage of the licence to them was discrimination based on sexual orientation and in violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR, as well as a violation of Article 23 of the ICCPR. The Court held that the allegation of discrimination was unfounded as neither Article 14 of the ECHR nor any other international legal instrument required states to provide for recognition of same-sex

331 The Constitutional Court referred to Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 10(1) of the ICESCR, and the preamble to the CRC. 332 In particular, the Court referred to Article 16(3) of the UDHR, Article 10(1) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 333 See above, note 328. 111 334 Ibid. 112 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 341 340 339 338 337 336 335 constitute family life inthesameway asa notedAs above, recognisedECtHRhas the same-sexthat relationships may 2.5.2 ples demonstrate thatsame-sex relationships are discussed. whether suchdatahasbeencollected andprocessed. by Rosstat withregard to thenumber ofsame-sex marriages,itremains unclear sex marriagesor polygamous marriages. census takers to collectinformation about“unusual”situations,includingsame- Separately, since2010,theFederal ServiceofState Statistics(Rosstat) hasrequired nomic factors, andthatitispossiblein“heterosexual or gay andlesbianfamilies”. across thepopulationregardless ofclass,race culture, religion andsocialeco his 2008report, “Problems of DomesticandFamily Violence”, thatviolenceexists the authorities.For example, theOmbudsmanofPerm Region acknowledged in ships inRussian law, theexistence oftheserelationships isnotcompletely deniedby It shouldbenoted thatalthough there isnolegal recognition ofsame-sex relation Article 8.Thecasewas communicated to theRussian FederationMay2 on 2016. violations ofArticles 8and12oftheECHR andofArticle14inconjunctionwith registered asmarriage underRussian law. three lesbiancouples,allofwhom have beenunableto have theirrelationships civilRussia partnership) in iscurrentlybeing challengedbefore ECtHRby the The lackofany form oflegal recognition ofsame-sex unions(bothmarriage and trends inthissphere. Thedecisionwas upheldonappealthesamegrounds. demonstrate thatthenationalmargin ofappreciation outweighs any international marriages. 342

Based onareview oftheofficialwebsite by Rosstat, available at:www.gks.ru. со округе” федеральном Крымском 100-процентным охватомнаселения в “Перепись наблюдения статистического федерального ( data on“rare situations”such as “same-sex marriage”between two persons living inone household of State Statisticsonthecensus intheCrimeanFederalwhich requiredDistrict, census takers to collect года” 2010 населения переписи Всероссийской 21 May 2010, No.198( Order of theRosstat,approval “On of thedocumentsfor the Russiancensus in2010”, national насилия ( of thePermOmbudsman Region, Ibid. Fedotova andShipitko vRussia Липецкого (Определение 33-2656/2013 No. 2013, судаобластного от 7октября October 2013года поделу№33-2656/2013). 7 Court, Oblast Lipetsk the of Decision Application Nos.18766/11and36030/11,21July 2015. werecision and thesubsequentappeal delivered prior to theECtHRdecision in Schalk andKopf vAustria, Грязинского городского суда Липецкой областиот 12августа 2013года поделу№2-1011/2013). Judgment of the Gryazinskiy City Court of the Lipetsk Oblast, 12 August 2013, No. 2-1011/2013 (Решение Приказ Росстата от 12 августа 2014 года № 512 “Об утверждении инструктивного материала инструктивного утверждении “Об 512 № года 2014 августа 12 от Росстата Приказ ОтчетУполномоченного по правам человека в Пермском крае “Проблемы домашнего и семейного Legal Recognition ofSame-Sex Relationships as Family Relationships , Communicated Case02May 2016,available at: ). 335 TheCourt cited theECtHR decisionin Приказ Росстата от 21 мая 2010 года № 198 “Об утверждении документов утверждении “Об 198 № года 2010 мая 21 от Росстата Приказ Application No.30141/04, Application should benoted24 June2010. It this de both that , ApplicationNo.40792/10,30538/14,43439/14,lodged27July 2010. ProblemsDomestic of Familyand Violence ” ). 341 ). See also the2014 instruction of the FederalService 338 As no official data has been published published been has data official no As http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163362 de facto Theapplicantsare allegingvarious Schalk andKopf vAustria 342 different-sex relationships However, thesetwo exam Oliari and Others vItaly , 30 December2008 , 336 . 337

339 340 to to - - - - ,

do for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR.343 Thus the ECtHR has found that justice or complicity? the continuation of tenancy on a partner’s death and the extension of insur- ancedenying cover same-sex to a partner, couples may benefits fall within afforded the ambit to different-sex of private andcouples, family such life asin Article 8 and amount to discrimination (in conjunction with Article 14).344 At the international level, the HRC found a violation of the right to non-discrimination under Article 26 of the ICCPR, in a case in which a pension was denied to a same-sex partner on the basis that the relationship was a same-sex rela- 345 tionship. Accordingly, the HRC recognises the legal consequences that may addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: - wise alike different-sex relationships. flow from same-sex relationships should be like those which flow from other In a similar way, it may be possible to argue in the Russian context that although - ples, they may be able to be considered as family members for the purpose of cer- same-sex couples cannot receive benefits provided by law only to married cou explained that the notion of “family” comprises a special sphere of human life, whichtain laws is regulated which provide by means benefits of legislative to family members.acts with special The Constitutional purposes,346 CourtHowever, has which would expressly prevent same-sex couples from being recognised as family. Moreover,there is no although universal Russian definition law ofdoes family not orrecognise family relationshipscohabitation ofin differentRussian lawsex partners as de facto marriage, such relationships have been recognised by Russian courts as falling within the sphere of family life for the purposes of the ECHR.347 This argument should logically extend to same-sex relationships. However, as noted below, such an argument has to date not succeeded.

One example of where such recognition may be possible (but which is as yet apparently untested) is in relation to the Housing Code of the Russian Feder- ation, which guarantees certain housing rights to a tenant’s family members. For example, pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Housing Code, a tenant who rents housing on the basis of a social lease (i.e. a municipal apartment) may move in additional tenants as family members with the consent of the municipality. Any such co-tenant acquires the same rights with regard to the rented housing as the lead tenant, including the right to life-long tenancy, or the right to live in the housing after the termination of the family relationship with the lead tenant.

343 Pajić v Croatia X and Others v Austria, Application No. 19010/07, 19 February 2013, Para 95 and the references cited therein. , Application No. 68453/13, 23 February 2016, Paras 61-68; and 344 See, P.B. and J.S. v Austria, Application No. 18984/02, 22 July 2010, Paras 33 and 42, where the extension Kozak v Poland Applica-

of insurance was considered to fit within the ambit of private and family life; and tion No. 13102/02, 2 March 2010, Paras 83–85, 99, where the continuation of the tenancy was considered 345 toYoung fit within v Australia, private Communication life and also the No. right 941/2000, to respect UN for Doc. home. CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000, 18 September 2003, Para 10.4. 346 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia, 5 July 2001, No. 135-O . (Определение Конституционного 347 СудаSee, for Российкой example, Федерации Appellate decision от 5 июля of the2001 Sverdlovsk года № 135-О) Oblast Court, 3 June 2015, No. 33-7597/2015 ( 113 7597/2015). Апелляционное определение Свердловского областного суда от 03.06.2015 по делу N 33- 114 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 353 352 351 350 349 348 an exceptional circumstance allowing for thegrant ofthepermit. with asame-sex partnerwas notequivalentto having afamily” andtherefore not threat toof thehealthRussian population”“livingthe applicant’s andthat “actual an to amounted status HIV applicant’s the that particular in finding mit, District Court of Yekaterinburg upheldtherefusal to grantthe residence per familycant’s Russian tieswith nationals. bypassed withreference toconsiderations”, “humanitarian such astheappli permits to foreign who nationals are HIV-positive isnotabsolute andmay be The Court decisionConstitutional the prohibitionheld that onissuing residence of his HIV-status,an earlier inlinewith decision Court. of theConstitutional as exceptionalcircumstances for grantingresidencehim a permit irrespective same-sexstable relationship. He argued any that familyconsideredbe tiescould arguing, challenged thedecision toapplicant refuse to granta residence permit incourt, permits to foreign who nationals cannot show their HIV-negative status. tion 7(1)(13) of the Foreign which Nationals Act, prohibits the issue of residence Service (FMS) becausehe was found to be HIV-positive. The FMS referred to Sec ever, hisrequest was denied by theSverdlovsk division of the FederalMigration same-sexpartner since2010.2012, he requested In residence ahow permit, came to Russia in 2006 to study atamedicalcollege.He hadbeenliving withhis foreigner’s right to reside in Russia.who The case concerned national a Kazakh oftheirrelationshipon thebasis ties” arose inlegalproceedings concerning a The issue of whether same-sex couplesmay beconsidered as having “family the research didnotidentifyany casesinwhich thisargument hadbeenraised. way couldalsobeargued to apply to atenant’s partner ofthesame-sex, although how longthey have lived together. whether they canbeconsidered to beliving aspartofashared household,and family relationship suchasmutualrespect exist, andmutualcare for eachother, tenant’sfamily capacity; another in or member tors including:whether thatpersonmoved into thehouseincapacityof a personisthetenant’s “family member”, musttake into accountanumber offac In2009,theSupreme whencourt. Court stated determining thatacourt, whether stances, other personsmay beacknowledged asthetenant’s family membersby a bers are hisor herspouse,children, orparents. However, inexceptional circum In accordance withArticle69(1)oftheHousing Code, thetenant’s family mem

2012 года поделу№2-2973/2012). (РешениеВерх-Иссетского2-2973/2012 No. July2012, 26 суда районного июля от26 Екатеринбурга See above, note 350,Para 38 (referring to JudgmentoftheVerkh-Issetskiy DistrictCourt ofYekaterinburg, 12MayDecision oftheConstitutionalCourt, 2006 no.155-O. Конститу-ционного Суда(Определение Российской Федерацииот 12мая2006года №155-О). 155-O No. 2006, May 12 Russia, of Court Constitutional the of Decision See 15 March 2016,Para 37(referring to theDecisionofFederal Migration Serviceof 26July 2012). Novruk andOthers vRussia Ibid. в возникших вопросах, некоторых судебной “О практике кодекса припримененииЖилищного Российской Para Федерации”), 25. 14 N 02.07.2009 от РФ Суда Верховного Пленума новление (Поста- Federation”,Russian14 the No. of 2009, JulyCode 2 Housing the of application the regardto with Resolution ofthePlenarySessionSupreme Court ofRussia “Oncertain issuesinjudicialpractice inter alia , thathe had family ties in Russia because he had lived in a , Applications Nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, , ApplicationsNos.31039/11,48511/11, 76810/12,14618/13and13817/14, 349 Therecognition offamily membersinthis 352 On 26 July On 2012, the Verkh-Issetskiy 348 whether thecharacteristics ofa 353 350 The 351 ------

The District Court’s decision was reversed by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on justice or complicity? 21 November 2012 with reference to the ECtHR’s judgment in Kiyutin v Russia354 and to the binding nature of the ECtHR’s judgments in respect of Russia. In Kiyu- tin, the ECtHR held that although the ECHR does not guarantee a foreign national the right to settle in the territory of a Member State of the Council of Europe, a refusal to allow such entrance violates the Convention when it prevents an individual from enjoying his or her family life or the right to be free from discrimination.355 based solely on HIV status violated Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: 8.356 Applying The thisECtHR decision, went onthe to Regional find that Court a refusal held thatto issue the decisiona residence of the permit FMS was unlawful because it was based exclusively on the applicant’s HIV-positive status. Accordingly, the Regional Court ordered that the residence permit application be re-examined.357

A separate procedure had been instituted by the Federal Consumer Protection Authority (FCPA) to have the applicant’s presence in Russia declared “undesirable” in accordance with Section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act on account of his HIV-positive status.358 A decision to this effect was made on 15 March 2013.359 On 26 April 2013, the applicant travelled to Kazakhstan. He was refused entry into Russia two days later as a consequence of the decision of the FCPA, which he then challenged. On 30 May 2013, the Verkh-Issetskiy District Court allowed his appeal.360 However, on 13 August 2013, this decision was overturned by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. In doing so, the Court held that the applicant was single and did not have a family relationship with any Russian national.361 The Court concluded that the decision did not violate the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, his right to the protection of his health, the prohibition on discrimination or the right to personal dignity. Leave for a cassation appeal was refused on 19 February 2014 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court,

Russian national did not equate to social links to Russia.362 On 1 April 2014, an applicationwhich stated for that leave the to applicant’s appeal to the confirmation Supreme Court of a wassexual also relationship rejected.363 with a

This approach was criticised by the ECtHR in its recent judgment of Novruk and Others v Russia, which concerned, among other applicants, the situation of the

354 Kiyutin v Russia, Application No. 2700/10, 10 March 2011. 355 Ibid., Para 53. 356 Ibid

357 See .,above, Paras note 72–74. 350, Para 39 (referring to Appellate Decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21 Novem-

ber 2012, 33-13906/2012 (Определение Свердловского областного суда от 21 ноября 2012 года по 358 делуIbid., Para№ 33-13906/2012). 40. 359 Ibid., Para 41. 360 Ibid., Para 43. 361 Ibid., Para 44. 362 Ibid., Para 45. 115 363 Ibid., Para 46. 116 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364 different-sex couplesbutnotfor same-sex couples,theCourt found aviola situation inwhich thelaw allowed for second-parent adoptionfor unmarried of amarriedcouple(who couldlegally adoptinthisway). the situationofanunmarriedsame-sex couplewas notcomparable to that ence intreatment afforded to same-sexThe Court further found couples. that ent adoptionfor unmarrieddifferent-sex couples,asthere hadbeennodiffer tion, theCourt found noviolationwhere thelaw didnotallow for second-par a violationofArticle14inconjunctionwith8. her sexual orientation where thelaw allowed for thispossibilityamounted to the Court hasfound thatarefusal to allow alesbianto adoptonthebasisof has, to date, dealt with the first two situations. In relation to the first of these, together.child a adopt to wishing couple same-sex a and tion); their same-sex partner’sbiological child(referred to assecond-parent adop adopttoLGBT individual wishing an own; their on LGBTindividualadopting guished between three different situationswhich may ariseinthiscontext: an the ECtHR withwhat may bedescribedasmixed results. TheECtHR hasdistin those oftheirsame-sex partner, hasbeenconsidered onseveral occasionsby The right ofsame-sex individuals andcouplesto adoptchildren, including 2.5.3 he hadbeenliving indefacto stablerelationship. of family lifeinstead but arguedhad failedthe applicant that to demonstrate that contestfactnot same-sexthe that relationships falldefinition such the under as Notably,during theproceedings before theECtHRRussian Government did sex partnership, which fallswithin thenotionof private life andfamily life”. conclusion, theECtHRnotedlivedthe applicant that de facto“stable ina same- to issue himaresidence permit andordered his expulsion. nated againstof hisHIV-statuson account when theRussian authoritiesrefused in theaboveapplicant case.

Others vAustria noted that itdid not consider the former situation amounted to indirect discrimination. See also, Gas andDuboisv France, See See Ibid., Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid. Right to Adopt ., Para 81. ., Para 87. ., Para 112. E.B. vFrance X andOthers vAustria a family or atleastasociallink. refusedto recognisethat their same-sex relationship amounted to but evidence that taken had which courts, Russian the of findings testednot been inthedomestic proceedings sits illwith the actual The Government’s claim that the evidence oftheir relationship has Para 87. , above, note 343,Paras 105–110. , above, note 308,Paras 94-98. , above, note 343,Para 100. Application No. 25951/07, 15 March 2012, Paras 66–70, in which the Court the which in 66–70, Paras 2012, March 15 25951/07, No. Application 364 The ECtHR held that the applicant wasthe applicant TheECtHRheldthat discrimi 368 367 TheECtHRnoted that: 370 Inthesecondsitua 371 365 However, inthe Inreaching this 369 TheCourt X and 366 ------tion of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.372 The Court took the justice or complicity? opportunity to note that Article 8 does not require states to provide a right of second-parent adoption to unmarried couples.373 Increasingly, states are recognising the right of same sex individuals and couples to adopt children, and international best practice dictates that same-sex individuals be entitled to adopt without discrimination. This position is supported by Principle 24 of the Yogyakarta Principles states that “everyone has the right to found a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” This Principle goes on to recommend that “States take all necessary legislative, administrative addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption…without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity”.

Under Russian law, adoption is aimed at providing care for children left without parental custody.374 Russian law allows for adoptions to be made by indi- viduals375 and does not place any explicit restrictions on adoption by an LGBT individual. However, it should be noted that some politicians have recently argued in favour of removing parental custody from gay or lesbian parents and so this option may be closed in the future.376 The Family Code allows for child of their spouse.377 same-sexa simplified couples, adoption as theprocedure terminology for a husbandused in theor wife section to adopt “step-mother” the biological and “step-father” is considered However, by the this Courts simplified as requiring procedure the parentswould not to applybe mar to- ried.378 Unmarried different-sex couples may utilise the normal (non-simpli- 379 Whilst an LGBT individual could theoretically utilise this procedure to adopt his or her partner’sfied) adoption biological procedure child toas adopt a single their adoptive partner’s parent, biological this child.can only be done at the expense of the biological parent giving up his or her parental rights or duties. This is because the wording of the Family Code allows for parental links to be retained only in cases of single adoption and only in regards to a parent of the opposite sex (when a single man adopts a child, the child’s biological mother may retain these rights and duties, and vice versa).380 Thus, there is no real, practical possibility for an LGBT individual to adopt his or her partner’s biological child.

372 See X and Others v Austria, above note 343, Paras 112, 116, 130, 195. 373 Ibid., Para 136. 374 See above, note 317, Article 123. 375 Ibid., Article 127(1). 376 “Deputy Mizulina Suggested Removing Children from Russian Gays and Lesbians” GayRussia, 14 June 2013, available at: http://www.gayrussia.eu/russia/6814. (Депутат Мизулина предложила отбирать детей у российских геев и лесбиянок), 377 See above, note 317, Article 127(1). 378 See, for example, Appellate decision of the St. Petersburg City Court, 25 November 2014, No. 33-19356/2014

379 See above, note 317, Article 137. (Определение Санкт-Петербургского городского суда от 25 ноября 2014 года № 33-19356/2014). 117 380 Ibid., Article 137. 118 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 386 385 384 383 382 381 couples (ofdifferent sexes) who are nationalsor residents ofsuchstates apply to or residents ofstates thatallow same-sex marriages. establish anabsolute prohibition onadoption by single personswho are nationals ing theapplicationofnewrestrictions. On 29August 2013,theSupreme Court provided interpretative guidelines regard obtaining consentoftheRussian authorities priorto adoption. adoption ofaRussian childliving abroad shallberecognised inRussia subjectto nationals. cation islodgedwiththeRussian authorities), includingthosewho are foreign childrenall adopted intheterritorythe Russianof Federation (when anappli parental care. cannot becomeguardians ortrustees ofchildren who are orphansor leftwithout ing, children inRussia. sons who are nationalsofastate thatrecognises same-sex marriage, from adopt with legislationofastate where suchmarriage isallowed”, aswell assingle per relationship whose unionis“recognised asmarriageandregistered inaccordance Article 127oftheFamily Codewas amendedto prevent personsinasame-sex tional requirements for adoptionandguardianship ofchildren living inRussia. same-sexspouses who marriedlawfullycountries, other in In 2013,theFamily Code was amended to explicitly restrict theparental rights of by theminaforeign country. denying recognition ofasame-sex coupleasparents ofachildjointly adopted on based justification a be to argued be may below discussed denial ofsuchrecognition by Russian authorities,thelegislative amendments contradict the cle 167oftheFamily Code, foreign family laws shallnotbeappliedwhen they effected overseas to berecognised inRussia. However, inaccordance with Arti of theFamily Code allows for parental authorityarising from ajointadoption made abroad canberecognised underRussian law. Theoretically, Article163 adoptive parents. Itisunclearwhether jointadoptionsby same-sex couples married. The Family Code explicitly prohibits jointadoptionby personswho are not 388 387

Ibid The guidelineswere approved by thePresidium ofthe Supreme Courtof Russia on29August 2013. Ibid. Ibid See above, note 317. повопросамустройстваФедерации детей-сирот оставшихся идетей, безпопеченияродителей”). 2 июля 2013 года № 167-ФЗ “О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской ments of orphans and children left without parental care, 2 July 2013, No. 167-FZ (Федеральный закон от Federal law onAmendmentsto Certain Legislative Acts oftheRussian Federation concerning legal arrange applied when they contradict of theFamily Code) inaccordance withArticle 167 of theFamily Code foreign family lawsbe not shall Law. Whereaslegal personal be determinedshall status by thelawperson’sof that residence (Article 163 is unclearwhetherIt joint adoptionsby same-sexcouples madeabroad be recognised can under Russian Ibid. . ., Article146(1). , Article165. , Article127(4). 381 386 Thisautomatically excludes same-sex partners aspotential joint Inaddition,Article165(4)oftheFamily Code provides thatforeign 385 ordre public Theserestrictions regarding adoptionandguardianship apply to 384 Similarly, Article146was amendedandsuch persons ordre public of Russia. Although there have beennoinstancesof of Russia. 387 The Court stated that these rules TheCourt stated thattheserules 388 However, when married 382 by introducingaddi ordre public for for 383 ------adopt Russian children, Russian courts considering these applications must take justice or complicity? into account whether the legislation of the state of the adopting couple allows for placing an adopted child in a different family, and whether there is a binding treaty between Russia and that state requiring the consent of the Russian authorities in the event of a child being placed with a different family. If there is no such treaty, and the domestic law allows for placing an adopted child in a different family, the Supreme Court stated that courts should reject an application for adoption.389 The

adoption requests from nationals or residents of states allowing legal recognition addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: ofsignificance same-sex unions.of this guidance390 is rather residual as in practice judges largely refuse

This guidance was applied by the Supreme Court in a case of a different-sex Span- ish couple who sought to adopt two Russian children.391 The Court granted the application for adoption, noting that in case the children needed to be removed from the adopting family, any future placement must follow an undertaking provided by the Andalusian regional government to comply with Russian laws banning adoption by same-sex couples.392

Although the restrictions introduced by the 2013 amendments to the Family Code were adopted in order to exclude adoptions by foreigners, they may apply to a Russian national who is married to a person of the same sex under foreign laws. Such a situation has come before the courts on one occasion when a Rus- sian national challenged a decision to terminate her guardianship. The woman

2014,had guardianship she entered over into aregistered six-year-old life child partnership on the basis (Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz of an official decision by) withthe guardianship another woman office under of the German Sovetskiy law. District When of she the later Astrakhan applied City to the of 2010. guardi In- - terminatedanship office her to statusissue her as aa guardian.permit to393 move with the child to another city in Rus sia so that she could live with her partner, the guardianship office refused and The woman challenged the decision in the Sovetskiy District Court of Astra- khan arguing that she was of a “traditional” sexual orientation and that the life partnership was an agreement aimed at arranging a joint household and mutual support with the other woman. The District Court held that the life partnership union is almost equal to same-sex marriage. Accordingly, the Court prohibition on guardianship for those who have entered into a same-sex union upheld the decision of the guardianship office, finding that the Article 146(1)

389 Ibid. 390 Interview conducted by Dmitri Bartenev with Ms Vorokushina, 20 May 2016, Municipal District no. 10, St. Petersburg. 391 Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 10 December 2013, No. 59-APG13-5

(Апелляционное определение Верховного Суда Российской Федерации от 10 декабря 2013 года по 392 делуIbid. № 59-АПГ13-5). 393 119 Judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan, 4 March 2015, No. 2-1001/2015 (Решение Советского районного суда Астрахани от 4 марта 2015 года по делу № 2-1001/2015). 120 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 397 396 395 394 behind the bestpractice approach. The ECtHR has recognised the ECHR that That said,some internationaland regional humanrights jurisprudence lags still vidual’s right to personalautonomy andphysical integrity. tion to secure recognition of anewgender is a serious interference with anindi Requiring transgender persons to undergo surgicalintervenor othermedical ple 3oftheYogyakarta Principleswhich provides: Princi expresslyin recognised is This self-identification. own their of basis the empowered to receive legal recognition oftheir gender and gender identity on be conditional on any form of medical intervention; rather individuals should be thermore, suchlegalrecognition ofanindividual’s gender identity shouldnot particular gender and that such identification must be legally recognised. Internationalbest practice requiresindividualan that to beable identify as a 2.5.4 applied to aRussian national. case identified to date where the prohibition on adoption or guardianship was removal of custodial rights was justified by any legitimate aim. This is the only to Article3oftheCRC) andmeantthatitdidnotneedto considerwhether the interests ofthechild(which istherequired primary consideration pursuant in theCourt’s view, theabsolute nature oftheprohibition outweighed any office. guardianship the by contested been not had argument thatshehadprovided thechildwithduecare, which the plaintiff’s recognised asmarriageapplied.

ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vwgh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2008170054_20090227X00 tity was unlawful; whichthat mandatoryalso ruled surgical interventioncondition fora as the legalrecognition iden of gender entscheidungen/rs20110111_1bvr329507.html no. 7/2011,January 28,2011,1BvR 3295/07( § 8.1nos.3and4oftheTranssexuals Act are unconstitutional,Order ofJanuary11,2011” Press release (Bundesverfassungsgericht), “Prerequisites for thestatutory recognition oftranssexuals according to surgery to obtainlegalrecognition gender wastheir new of unconstitutional. pairment ofphysical andruled thattherequirement integrity” thatindividuals undergo sex reassignment by theConstitutional Court in Germany which found thatgenderreassignment surgery isa“massive im 2009, available at: forCommissioner RightsHuman Europe,of Council the of plication No.35968/97,ECHR2003‑ Goodwin v the United Kingdom Ibid ное определениеАстраханского суда областного от 29июня2015года). Ibid Gender Recognition . (Апелляцион- 2015, June 29 Court, Oblast Astrakhan the by appeal on upheld was judgment The . gender identity or hormonaltherapy, asarequirement for legal recognition oftheir medical procedures, including sex reassignment surgery, sterilisation freedom. and determination,forced Nooneshallbe dignity to undergo integral andisoneofthe to their mostbasicaspectsofself- personality Each person’sself-defined sexual is orientation andgender identity Verwaltungsgerichtsh

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=1476365&direct=true . [GC], Application No. 28957/95, ECHR 2002‑ ECHR 28957/95, No. Application [GC], VII.

of 394

no. 2008/17/0054, judgmentofFebruary 27,2009, Likewise theCourt rejected asirrelevant ; German only

see alsodecisionoftheAustrian ), Human RightsHuman Identity,Gender and http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/ 395 Itcanbeassumedthat 397 VI; Federal Constitutional Court

Administrative High Court Van Kück vGermany ; see also: the decision decision the also: see ; http://www. 396 . 29 July29 Fur , Ap ------imposes an obligation on states to ensure recognition and protection of trans- justice or complicity? gender persons’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention.398 The Court has stated that gender identity is a “fundamental aspect of the right to respect for private life”399 and noted that States are required to legally recognise the gender of post-operative transsexuals. In L. v Lithuania the Court explained that positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention required States “to implement the recognition of the gender change in post-operative transsexuals through, inter alia, amendments to their civil-status data, with its ensuing consequences.”400

The Committee of Ministers has taken the same approach, recommending that: addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts:

Member states should take appropriate measures to guarantee the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way; member states should also ensure, where appropriate, the corre- sponding recognition and changes by non-state actors with respect to key documents, such as educational or work certificates.401

However, despite recognising that gender identity is “one of the most basic essentials of self-determination”402 the Court has not, to date, found that requiring individuals to undergo medical intervention to obtain legal recognition of their gender is unlawful. In 2010 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution calling on Member States to ensure the right to:

[O]fficial documents that reflect an individual’s preferred gender identity, without any prior obligation to undergo sterilisation or other medical procedures such as sex reassignment surgery and hormonal therapy.403

The Commissioner for Human Rights issued a paper on Human Rights and Gender Identity that expressly noted that the requirement for medical and surgical intervention “clearly run counter to the respect for the physical integrity of the person”.404 He went on to note that such requirements “ignores the fact that while such opera- tions are often desired by transgender persons, this is not always the case”.405 At the time of publication, there are currently two pending cases before the ECtHR which

398 Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom Van Kück v Ger- many Grant v the United Kingdom, no. 32570/03, ECHR 2006-VII. [GC], Application No. 28957/95, ECHR 2002‑VI; , Application No. 35968/97, ECHR 2003‑VII; and 399 Ibid., Van Kück v Germany L. v Lithuania, Application No. 27527/03, 31 March 2008.

400 Ibid., L. v Lithuania, Para, 56.Application, See also, Para. Hämäläinen 75; v Finland, Application No. 37359/09, 16 July 2014, Para 68. 401 See above, note 37, Para 21. 402 See above, note 398, Para 75. 403 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1728(2010) on Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, 29 April 2010, Para. 16.11.2. 404 See Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, above, note 397. 121 405 Ibid. 122 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 414 413 412 411 410 409 408 407 406 (in caseoffemaleto transformation), male legalgender could bechangedfollowing hormone therapy, discretionon judicial inany given case. depends gender in change a recognisingorder an make to court a for sufficient in selected regions, son’s legal gender without acourtorder onlynumber of inasmall cases and only per a change to agreed had reality,offices in registrycivil that found study the proof of irreversible gender reassignment surgery isneeded. reportthe needfor stating “gender marker” a change, medical a with along transsexuality diagnosed of certificate medical a require ognition ofgender change. requirementsspecific recuniformlegalapproachthe toforno the there is that A study conducted by theTransgender LegalDefence Project in2012 revealed of medicalintervention inorder to have theirgender legally recognised. would beinterpreted to require individuals to undergo surgery orsomeotherform solvedachievingwithout 2007 in any currentlyis It result. whetherunclear Law this workingup a set the Ministry 2005, group for Groupthis but purpose this wasdis CareHealth Ministry. Article 70requires thisstandard form ofmedicaldocumentto bedeveloped by the a medicalorganisation ispresented notingthatthe person’s genderhaschanged. the civil statusentryofapersonwhere adocumentofstandard form issuedby changing or correcting on decision a issue shall office Law,registrycivil the a of 70 sex”.of change about certificate medical “a of entation Acts”tus allows transgender topersons legaltheir change followinggender presthe reassignmentabsence ofgender surgery. concern theabilityofindividuals to secure recognition oftheir genderidentityinthe 415

See above, note 409. ловского Judgment oftheDorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, 17 October 2014 ( Ibid. See above, note 409. Ibid. uments suchaspassports. “Gender marker” in this context connotes the identification of “male” or “female” in Russian identity doc практике //Медицинское 2012.N3.С. 24–34). право. 24-34 (КириченкоИзменение гражданского К.А. пола граждан в российской правоприменительной Kirichenko, K.,“Change ofLegal GenderofCitizens inRussian JudicialPractice”, Ibid актах “Об закон (Федеральный 143-FZ No. от состояния” гражданского 15ноября1997года 1997 №143-ФЗ),Article70. November 15 of Acts Status Civil on Law Federal at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161936. eng?i=001-153720; and No. 52596/13 cation Communicated Case,18March 2015, availablehttp://hudoc.echr.coe.int/at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153718; at: available 2015, March 18 Case hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153722; A.P. vFrance .

районного , Application No. 79885/12 , Application Communicated Case 18 March 2015, availableat: http:// 412

суда 408 S.V. vItaly and the ultimateand decision on whatof documentsarekind However, today,of as formsuch no developed.been has In

города 409 , ApplicationNo. 55216, Communicated Case, 20 March 2016, available In some regions, civil registry offices state that they

Москвы Garçon vFrance

от 17 406 413 октября InRussia, theFederal Law “OnCivilSta In some cases,courtsconsidered In that 415 , Application No. , Application 52471/13, Communicated whereas inothercasesgonadec 2014 года 407 410 In accordance with Article Inaccordance withArticle whereas others state that ). Medical Law, 414 411 ormastectomy Решение Nicot vFrance Furthermore, Vol. 3,2012,pp.

Дорогоми- Appli ------tomy was an essential condition for recognising a new legal gender.416 The study justice or complicity? interventionidentified over to 50change cases their where gender. transgender The research persons did challenged not identify refusals any attempts of civil toregistry have a offices legal change to recognise of gender their recognised right gender by someone following who some had sort not undergoneof medical an argument that the treatment of the individual amounted to discrimination.417 However,any form ofin medicalone case, intervention. the Rudnichnyi None District of the Courtidentified of Prokopievsk cases explicitly referred raised in its decision to Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 19 of the Russian Constitution addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: to substantiate the general basis for its decision that everyone’s right to private life shall be protected on an equal basis with others.418 The Court explained that the fact that the Health Care Ministry had not issued a standard form of medical

419 A similar approach has beencertificate taken to by be other used courts. to confirm420 a change in gender, should not prevent a civil registry office from recognising a change in gender. that her former employer issue her a new employment record book with her newOne of“female” the cases name identified in it.421 in She the argued study concerned that having a antrans employment woman who record requested book with her former name in it crossed out and her new name added, which is a commonly accepted practice when an employee changes his or her name, violated her right to private life as every time she presented her employment record book it revealed that she had changed her “male” name to a “female” name. A Justice of the Peace rejected the case on the basis that the woman’s request did 422 Such an approach contradicts human rights standards in relation to the right to privacy andnot complynon-discrimination, with the standards which for would filling require in employment such a change record to books.be made.

2.5.5 Parental Rights and Gender Reassignment

There is a dearth of international jurisprudence on the parental rights of transgender persons. International best practice dictates that transgender persons may not suffer discrimination in relation to their parental rights on the grounds of their gender identity. As outlined above, Principle 24 of the Yogyakarta Prin-

416 Judgment of the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod, 2011, No. 2-9631/11 ( 2011 , Решение 417 НижегородскогоBased on the informationрайонного providedсуда городаby the TransgenderНижнего Новгорода Legal Aid Projectгода (St. делоPetersburg) № 2-9631/11). to Dmitri Bart- enev on 15 March 2016. 418 Judgment of the Rudnichnyi District Court of Prokopievsk of the Kemerovo Oblast, 4 December 2013, No. 2-2490/2013 ( 4 2013 , Решение Рудничного районного суда города Прокопьевска Кемеровской области от 419 Ibid.декабря года дело № 2-2490/2013). 420 Based on the information provided by the Transgender Legal Aid Project (St. Petersburg) to Dmitri Bart- enev on 15 March 2016. 421 Until recently an employment record book has been considered the main document proving one’s employment record. 422 123 Judgment of a justice of the peace of the Ryazan City, 21 November 2007 (Решение мирового судьи города Рязани от 21 ноября 2007 года). 124 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 428 427 426 425 424 423 gone gender reassignment from marrying. before theStatewhich, Duma, ifpassed,wouldprevent persons who have under sequences of a change inlegalgender recognition, althoughis currently abill certificate medical “a of basis change ofsex”.about the on gender legal change to person a allows With respect to Russian law, asnoted above, inprinciple,Russian legislation of genderidentityincasessuchasthis. tomaking decision dence-based ensure that there on groundsdiscrimination no is about what may andmay notbeinthebestinterests ofachild.There isaneedevi extentthe to which stereotypes prejudiceand are factoredbeing toin decisions they are madeinthebestinterests ofthechild.Thatsaid,itiscriticalto identify on custody rights ofbiologicalparents willnotamount to discrimination when allow thechildto becomeusedto thegenderreassignment. every two monthsleadingto increased visitation,andthattheaimof thiswas to continued to have visitationrights to her son,which were reviewed by ajudge tity, butrather onthebestinterests ofthechild. TheCourt noted thatthewoman Court found thatsuchrestrictions were notbasedthefact ofhertransgender iden transgender woman andherbiologicalsonduring her genderreassignment, the is prohibited. Spain to formally recognise anon-biologicalfather familylife, foundCourt the that there wasno obligation for8 under Article state the relationship. his partner. Thechildhadbeenbornthrough artificialinseminationduringtheir man to benoted onthebirth certificate astheparent ofthe biologicalchildof Article 8,inthecircumstances inwhich itwas notpossiblefor atransgender there hadbeennoviolationofArticle 8orArticle14taken inconjunctionwith identity onparental rights. In The ECtHR hasvery limited jurisprudenceontheimpactof achangeingender of theCouncilEurope. wasThis ilies. Resolution2010 the in Parliamentaryconfirmed the of Assembly transgender persons are to able secure recognition and protection of their fam securing legal recognition of an individual’s gender identity, itis important that of the sexualorientation or gender identity of any of its members.” Inaddition to ciples providesfamily“no that may besubjected to discrimination on thebasis of birth)).( to theprohibition ofentering into marriage by thepersons of the samesex (asdetermined at thetime No. 790069-6Bill amending Article14 of “On the Family Code of the Russian Federation (withregard issuing anopinionby thecivil registry officefor rectifying anentryinthecivil status records. and refers to a “medical certificate of the change of gender issued by a medical organisation” as a basis for See above, note 407. The Lawdoesexplicitly not requireformparticular a gender ofchangebiological sexual andhersix-year-old sonwas inthechild’sbestinterests”, No.910,30November 2010. Ibid. P.V. vSpain X, YandZvUnited Kingdom See above, note 403,Para 10. the Court recognisedthe groundsdiscrimination on that of genderidentity Alsosee, Registrar “Press oftheCourt, Release: Restriction arrangementsof contact between atrans , ApplicationNo.35159/09,30November 2010(inFrench only). аоорет 706- “ вееи имннй саь 1 Смйоо кодекса Семейного 14 статью в изменений внесении “О 790069-6 № Законопроект 424 425 Whilenotingthatthecasedidfall withinthescopeofright to However, inanalysing restrictions placedoncontactbetween a 427 , ApplicationNo.21830/93,22April1997,Paras 12–19. However, Russian lawdoes not regulate thelegalcon 423 X, YandZvUnited Kingdom 428 . Initsmore recent decisionof The current absenceoflaw inthis , theCourt found that 426 Thus,restrictions P.V. v ------sphere means that transgender persons have the right to marry someone of a justice or complicity? different sex, and this report did not identify any cases which discussed the right of transgender individuals to marry. However, the absence of law relating to the recognition of parental rights of a person who has changed their gender does

Mr.lead Y. to was difficulties, born as asa woman. is illustrated In 1997, in the Y. gavefollowing birth cases. to a son. From 2001, Y. and Y.’s son’s father lived separately and in 2006, they divorced and custody over the child was granted to Y. In the same year, the parental rights of the child’s addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: father were terminated on account of his failure to take part in raising his son. In 2010, Y. underwent gender-reassignment surgery and was subsequently issued continue to bear details of Y. as his mother and also the details of his biological father.a new birthY. applied certificate to Dzerzhinskiy and a passport District as a Court male. ofHowever, Nizhniy the Tagil child’s to change documents these documents, arguing that he needed to disclose the fact of his gender change every time he had to prove that he had parental rights over his son. However, the Court dismissed the case, holding that there was no procedure available under Russian law to change the identity documents of the child.429 The Court rejected Y.’s argument that this situation constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life because of the need to disclose his transgender identity.430

Two recent cases in the Moscow region concerned the parental rights of two transgender women.431 by a transgender woman’s ex-wife to remove the child from the transgender woman’s care on the basis of In Article the first 73(2) case ofin 2015,the Family a district Code. court Article rejected 73(2) a permitsrequest a child to be removed from the care of a parent when leaving the child with the parent would place him or her in danger due to circumstances outside of the control of the parent, such as mental illness. However, this judgment was overturned of psychiatrists who had met with the child and concluded that the child felt “dis- comforton appeal and to uncertainty”the Moscow dueCity toCourt. his “father’s” The Court change referred in gender, to the findingswhich was of a resultpanel of his “father’s” “mental illness” (“transsexualism”). The experts further noted that disclosure of such information could negatively affect the child’s psychological state and that a “distorted understand of traditional relationships between a man and a woman” would have a negative impact on the child, leading to a “likelihood of non-traditional gender identification of the child in future, a tendency towards

). Российской Федерации (в части установления запрета на заключение брака между лицами 429 одного пола (определяемого при рождении) Judgment of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil, 2 June 2011, No. 2-604/2011 (Решение 430 ДзержинскогоIbid. Y. did not explicitly районного argue суда that города he had Нижний been discriminated Тагил от 2 июня against. 2011 года по делу № 2-604/2011). 431 - er and futher information may be available upon request to the Equal Rights Trust. For a further descrip- Information about these two cases is confidential. Copies of the judgment are retained with the researchThe Guardian, 12 November 2015, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/the- tion of these cases see, Gevisser, M., “The transgender woman fighting for the right to see her son. - gender woman’s parental rights”, Human Rights Camera, 17 August 2016, available at: https://mrkamera. 125 org/2016/08/17/svetlana-zakharova-courts-decision-on-transgender-womans-parental-rights.transgender-woman-who-may-never-see-her-son-again; and Zakharova, S., “Court’s decision on trans 126 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 433 432 is discriminatory. entail, andto rely on“traditional values” inorder to doso.Suchanapproach interests ofthe childwithoutdetailedconsideration ofwhat theseinterests that they are willingto defer to arguments thatremoving custody isinthebest “traditionala in placed family”. Russianthe In context, havecourts the shown the child,andnotrevert to discriminatory stereotypes thatchildren are best interestsbest the of propera be must child the of ofneeds the of assessment of other considerations, such asthebestinterest ofthechild,consideration tion. made solely onthebasisoftheirgenderidentity, would amountto discrimina sised in cases are distinguishablefrom theECtHR jurisprudence,becauseasempha with inconsistent not the previous approach oftheECtHR asoutlinedabove. However,glance, first theRussian at is, courts Russian the of approach The prevent thetransgender woman from seeinghim. determinationthe childshouldlive that mother withhis wouldbiological not to meetthe“traditional role” of the family. The Court also emphasised the that the previouscriticise case,thecourtsdidnot the transgender womanfor failing in 2015 and by theSupreme CourtoftheRussian Federationin 2016. Unlike in wasgender change.Thejudgment byon appeal upheld theMoscowCourt Oblast woman andher child living together for four years immediately following her gender transformation.“his” This decision was madedespite thetransgender the childtoinsteadand understandthesituation emphasised the importanceof gender “father’s”transformation andtheotherofwhichthe “father” concludedthat assist did not his accepting difficulty having was child the that concluded which of one psychiatrists, and psychologists of panels separate two of finding 65(3) Article oftheFamily Code. of child’s sole placeresidence mother should bewithhistobiological pursuant another In case,theLyuberetskiy CityCourtoftheMoscowfoundOblast a that Article 73(2)oftheFamily Code, onthebasisofherdiagnosistranssexualism. the Court restricted theparental rights ofthetransgender woman onthebasisof ships” development” which prohibits propaganda of“non-traditional sexual relation to theLaw “Onprotection ofchildren from information harmfulto their healthand referred further Court the findings, these lifestyles”.endorsed Havinganti-social 434 on sexual orientationwould amountto discrimination. See be determined by the courttakinginto accountachild’sbestinterest andtheiropinion. ents livingbe establishedbyshall apart their agreement, andintheabsenceof such agreement itshould 65(3) Article of theRussian Family Code providesof residencechild’s place a that in caseofhisorherpar See above, note 80. 434 432 AlekseyevRussia, v Although it is clear that distinction may be justified when made in light butprovided noexplanation ofwhy thislaw was relevant. Consequently, P.V. vSpain , distinctionsbetween therecognition ofbiologicalparents, above, notewhich 61,in theCourt noteddifferences that intreatmentbased solely 433 The decision was madeonthebasisof - - - - 2.6 Discrimination against LGBT Persons in Education justice or complicity? and Work This Part of the report considers discrimination against LGBT individuals in the education and labour spheres. Although the research sought to identify cases relating to economic, social and cultural rights more broadly, no such cases were

LGBT individuals to initiate legal proceedings as this would require them to revealidentified. their There LGBT maystatus be which a number they believeof reasons carries for thisrisks including: in an environment reluctance hos by- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: maytile to also LGBT remain persons; unpublished. a perception on the part of LGBT individuals that courts are not likely to vindicate their rights; and the fact that cases which may exist 2.6.1 Work

Article 6(1) of the ICESCR provides that:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

Pursuant to Article 2(2), the right to work must be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind,435 which includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.436 The Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) has recently noted that all LGBT individuals are entitled to be free from discrimination at work.437

Although the ECHR does not explicitly protect the right to work, the ECtHR has made it clear that dismissal from employment on the sole basis of sexual orientation will amount to a violation of the right to private life in Article 8 of the Conven- tion.438 In addition, the Committee of Ministers recommends that member states:

[S]hould ensure the establishment and implementation of appropriate measures which provide effective protection against discrimina-

435 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The Right to Work, Arti- cle 6, 6 February 2006, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/18, Para 19. 436 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, and Article 2(2) of ICECSR, 2 July 2009, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, Para 32. 437 Statement by International Labour Organization Director-General Guy Ryder on the occasion of the Inter- nationalInternational Day against Labour Homophobia Organization, and “LGBT Transphobia”, workers entitled 17 May to 2015, equal available rights and at: benefitshttp://www.ilo.org/glob at the workplace:- al/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/ilo-director-general/statements-and-speeches/WCMS_368652/ lang--en/index.htm. 438 See, Lustig-Prean and Beckett v the United Kingdom, Application No. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 Sep- Smith and Grady v the United Kingdom Perkins and R v the United Kingdom, Application No. 43208/98 and 44875/98, 22 October 2002, tember 1999, ParasBeck, 64, Copp104–105; and Bazeley v the United Kingdom, Application, above, No. 48535/99, note 242, Paras48536/99 71, 110– and 127 112; Paras 38–41; and 48537/99, 22 October 2002, Paras 51–53. 128 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 444 443 442 441 440 439 instead findingthattheapplicanthadfailed to prove any pressure onhim. examining without his appeal reasonsthe alleged fordecision, applicant’s the this decision. However, appealed The applicant theappellate courtrejected not consider his contentionhe hadbeenplacedunder pressure that to resign. determinedhe hadvoluntarily that decided tohis job. quit Court the because unfounded allegations his finding post, his to restored be to assemblies promotingpublic LGBT rights. The District Courtrejected his claim post becausetheschooladministrationhad beeninformed he took that in part In Khabarovsk, aschoolteacherhe hadbeenforcedthat alleged to resign his tion claimwas explicitly raised by thevictiminallbutfirst ofthesecases. proceedings,Khabarovsk,in Petersburg, St. Moscow Novosibirsk.and discrimina A orientation. The research identified four cases that have been the subject of judicial courts have simply disregarded allegations ofdiscriminationonthebasissexual of courtsto suchcasesmay alsodissuadevictimsfrom seekingaremedy, assome LGBT organisations. violations oflabourrights onadiscriminatory basishave beenreported by Russian entation orgenderidentityare almostnon-existent throughout Russia, although Legal caseschallengingdiscrimination inthelaboursphere basedonsexual ori tors notconnected withtheprofessional qualitiesofanemployee. sexualthat orientation or gender identity fallsor within either facsocial status of theemployees”.qualities of residence,place well“as as other factors not connectedthe professional with colour,skin nationality, property,origin, language, age, status, official and social or indirect advantagescontractin theconclusionofalabour based onsex, race, Labour Code prohibits any direct orindirect restriction orthegrantingof direct explainedthese that grounds include sexualorientation. is prohibitedtion the Russian isopenended,and Court recently Constitutional its discrimination relations. inlabour The list of grounds on which discrimina As noted inPart 1of this report, Article3of the Russian LabourCode prohib employment applicationsanddisclosure oftheirgenderidentityhistory. attentionparticular to protecting privacythe transgenderof relationin persons to Furthermore,notedas above,Committeethe notedalso has statesthat should pay 445

определение Хабаровского суда областного от 30июля2014 года поделу №33-4619/2014). Appellate Decision of the Khabarovsk Regional Court, 30 July 2014, No. 33-4619/2014 (Апелляционное суданого районного Хабаровскаот 16мая2014года поделу№2-326/14). Khabarovsk,(Решениеof 2-326/14 Централь- Court CentralMayNo. District the 16 2014, of Judgment See Russian LGBT Network andHumanRights Watch, above, note 11. The Articleallows exceptions to be made to thisprohibition by federal law. See above, note 14. Ibid. See above, note 37,Para 29. , Para 30. ment andoccupation inthe publicaswell asinthe private sector. tion ongrounds ofsexual inemploy orientation orgender identity 443 Moreover, asthebelow analysis demonstrates, theapproach 442 It may It beargued for the purposes of Article64 441 Article64 of the 444 TheCourtdid 439 440 -

445

- - - - - justice or complicity? the school administration had been informed about her alleged lesbian iden- tityIn St. and Petersburg, presented a musicwith several teacher photos was fired showing from her her position hugging at and a school kissing because other women. The school claimed that this was immoral behaviour incompatible with her work as a teacher. In its judgment, the District Court stated that it was not the plaintiff’s sexual orientation that was the basis for her dismissal, but her “immoral behaviour”.446 The Court went on to state that it considered the photos to be “immoral” because they demonstrated “unethically intimate relationships

between persons of the same sex and published on a social network on the inter- addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts: net”.447 On appeal, the applicant argued that her dismissal amounted to discrimination under Article 3 of the Labour Code, and also pursuant to Article 2(2) and 6 of the ICESCR because the photos were only considered “immoral” because they showed a same-sex relationship, whereas similar photos of a heterosexual couple would not be considered as contradicting public morals. The appellate court did not consider this argument and rejected her appeal.448

In a case before the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, a young man alleged that he was rejected for a post as a coach in a professional development programme for young leaders, “Captains of Russia”, on account of his sexual orientation. The man was contacted by the programme director on the basis of his CV, which he had had been selected for the post. However, when the programme director looked at placedhis personal on a major page Russianon a social job network, site. Following she enquired an interview, about hehis was sexual notified orientation. that he When the applicant replied that he was gay, the programme director sent him a message saying that they would not be able to hire him because the programme was based on a “traditional viewpoint on certain matters” and, she explained, it was an essential requirement that staff shared this view. The Court dismissed the man’s claim that he had been discriminated against in violation of Articles 3 and 64 of the Labour Code, Article 19 of the Federal Constitution, Article 2(2) of the ICESCR and the prohibition of discrimination with regard to work found in the European Social Charter (Revised).449 - 450 Accordingly, the Court did not analyse the Theallegation Court heldof discrimination. that there was451 not suffi cient evidence that the plaintiff applied for the post and was officially rejected. In a recent case in Novosibirsk, a woman challenged a refusal by a private company to hire her as sales manager due on the basis of her sexual orientation. She alleged that this amounted to discrimination under Article 64 of the

446

Judgment of the Kirovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, 21 April 2015, No. 2-1890/2015 (Решение 447 КировскогоIbid. районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от 21 апреля 2015 года по делу № 2-1890/2015). 448

Appellate decision of the St. Petersburg City Court, 3 September 2015, No. 33-12750/2015 (Апелляци- онное определение Санкт-Петербургского городского суда от 3 сентября 2015 года по делу 449 № 33-12750/2015). 450 TheJudgment applicant of the did Nagatinskiy not specific Districtwhich articles Court of were Moscow, referred 27 to,November but presumably 2015, No. this 2-11405/2015 is Article 1 and ( Article E. . Решение 451 Нагатинского районного суда Москвы от 27 ноября 2015 года по делу 2-11405/2015 129 Appellate decision of the Moscow City Court, 20 April 2016, No. 33-14156/2016 (Апелляционное определение Московского городского суда от 20 апреля 2016 года по делу № 33-14156/2016). 130 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 454 453 452 cle 13(1)provides that: The rightto educationisprovided for14 oftheICESCR. 13 and Article in 2.6.2 ment sphere. discrimination onthebasisofsexual orientationmay occurintheemploy theless, itispositive thatthecourtshave notoutright rejected theideathat hibit discriminationinemployment onthebasisofsexual orientation. None required meet standards ininternational andregional humanrights law,to which clearly pro fails approach an Such evidence. insufficient of basis the or explicit arewholethe on failingto examine situationsinwhichthere isa be overturned inthehigher courts. Theearlier decisionsshow thatthecourts Although this final case is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether it will of thisreport’s publication,theappealisstillpending. Thecompany non-pecuniary damage. the time the decision at and, hasappealed requires the company to employand pay theapplicant her compensation for anysimply detail, the defendantthat noting had failed to Thejudgment rebutit. for employment. sexualorientation” was unlawful wasit because based onrelevantnot grounds declaredthe refusal that to employbecause ofher “non-traditional theapplicant judgment of 29 July 2016, the Zheleznodorozhnyi District Court of Novosibirsk Therefore, employment [of the applicant] could lead to financial losses.” of worklot with clients.The majorityofourclientssupporttraditional values. performing her duties”. The company further explained “theposition requires a negatively affect thecompany’s reputationpreventand will from [theapplicant] ditional sexual orientation does not comply withthejobrequirements, it can Labour Code. In itsdefence tothe company theclaim, argueda “non-tra that cation thatisfree for all. of signingtheCovenanttwowithin plan an action adopt must years, to ensure compulsory primaryedu established free hasnot that party the time its jurisdiction andcompulsoryprimaryeducation withinat 14 oftheInternationalArticle Covenant on Economic, Culturaland Social Rights providesevery that state делу Ibid. по года 2016 июля 29 от № 2-3186/2016). Новосибирска суда районного Железнодорожного (Решение Judgment oftheZheleznodorozhnyi DistrictCourtofNovosibirsk, 29July 2016, case no.2-3186/2016 Education maintenance ofpeace. groups, andfurther the activities of the United Nationsfor the friendship amongall nations andall racial, ethnic orreligious effectively in afree society, promote understanding,tolerance and ther agree that education shall enable all persons to participate respect forand fundamental humanrights freedoms. They fur the and dignity,its sense of personality shall strengthenand it the Education shall be directed to the fulldevelopment ofthe human

case ofdiscrimination, instead preferring to dismisstheclaimson 453 The Court did not analyse the allegation of discrimination in prima facieprima - 452 454 In its In Arti ------

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that Article justice or complicity? 13(2) requires education to be made accessible to all persons without discrimination, acceptable in terms of its substance, and adaptable, to meet the needs of changing societies.455 States must closely monitor education to identify and address any discrimination in educational institutions, programmes, spending patterns and other practices.456 As well as being a right in itself, the right to education is also a means of realising other rights. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognises the right to education as a means for lifting 457 individuals out of poverty and enabling them to fully participate in society. addressing judicial practice discrimination against lgbt persons in courts:

Article 2, Protocol 1 of the ECHR provides that no person shall be denied the right to education.458 Any difference in treatment in relation to the right to education must therefore be in conformity with Article 14 of the ECHR on prohibition of discrimination.459 In 2005, a case brought by a doctoral student in a case against the Moscow State University raised questions of discrimination in the education sphere. The plaintiff alleged that he was expelled from the University because the Faculty of Public Administration did not want him to pursue doctoral research on the legal status of sexual minorities and that this amounted to discrimination pursuant to Article 19 of the Federal Constitution and also Article 14 of the ECHR, together with Protocol 1. However, the District Court dismissed the claims because the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suggested research topic had any bearing on the University’s decision to expel him. The Court accepted that the plaintiff was dismissed from the University because of his failure to comply with formal study requirements set forth in his individual plan, while the plaintiff contended that he had complied with the study require- 460 The plaintiff’s argument that this was only a pretext for criticising the topic of his doctoral study was dismissedments, which by thewere Court in any as unfoundedcase not clearly due to defined. the lack of evidence. Although the plaintiff presented the decision of the Faculty of Public Administration, which had refused to accept the proposed topic on legal status of sexual minorities as “not matching the department’s specialisation” and his own request for termination of his studies due to discrimination on account of sexual orientation to the Court, the Court did not assess these documents and did not consider the plaintiff’s discrimination claim further.461

455 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 13: The Right to Education, 8 December 1999, E/C.12/1999/10, Para 6. 456 Ibid., Para 36. 457 Ibid., Para 1. 458 Council of Europe, Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free- doms, 20 March 1952, ETS 9. 459 See, for example, Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v Belgium, Application No 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, and 2126/64, 9 European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, December 2015, p. 10 available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ Guide_Art_2_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf.February 1967; and 460

Judgment of the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, 10 June 2005, (Решение Никулинского районного 131 461 судаIbid. Москвы от 10 июня 2005 года). 132 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 465 464 463 462 the long-standingpractice ofpathologising“homosexuality”. challenging particular in individuals, LGBT against stigma fighting in remedies exampleimportant is an theless, thejudgment of successfulrecourse to judicial None regard. this in finding any make not did Court the and discrimination of order a variantbut of the normal. exclusively onhis“homosexuality”,“homosexuality” andthat dis mental is nota “perverse psychopathy” was unlawfullythat thediagnosis of the plaintiff’s based ORR’s rejection of the application plaintiff’s was illegal. The Court also confirmed 10 AugustOn 2005, the Frunzensky Petersburg District Court ofSt. ruledthat disorder andrefused to withdraw thenote from hismilitary record. psychiatricHowever, clinic. themilitarycontinuedto classifyhomosexuality asa namewas deleted from theregistry atthelocal 27 January2003,theplaintiff’s not include“homosexuality” inits listofmentalandbehavioural disorders. does which Diseases, of Classification International Organization’s Health World psychiatric assessments. tiff was registered atalocalpsychiatric clinicand required to undergo periodic of professions andtheabilityto perform militaryservice.Consequently, theplain tion, “perverse psychopathy” according to a1987USSRMinistry ofDefence regula as classified was homosexuality time, the “homosexual”.At was he because der 1992 aspartofhismilitary service,stated thathesuffered from amentaldisor This note, madeduringamedicalexamination thattheplaintiffunderwent in ductor dueto anote inhismilitaryrecord regarding his“homosexuality”. Oktyabrskaya Railroad Clinic, which deemed the plaintiff unfit to work as a con trainconductor. ORR’s rejection wasdecisionearlier based ona in2003 by the they did not allow him to enrol inthetraining courses necessary to become a road Companyin theFrunzensky (ORR) Petersburg DistrictCourtofSt. because In 2003, a resident of St. Petersburg filed a lawsuit against the Oktyabrskaya Rail 466

See above, note 462. Хпересмотра”). болезнейипроблем, связанныхсоздоровьем статистическую классификацию Международную на Федерации Российскойздравоохранения учреждений и переходе органов “О 170 № года1997 мая 27 отРоссии Минздрава (Приказ 170 No. 1997, Mayrevision” 27 10th of lems, eration health facilities of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Prob OrderMinistry ofRussia of theHealth Adopting “On by care thehealth organisations oftheRussian Fed See above, note 462. о медицинском вВооруженных освидетельствовании СилахСССР (намирноеивоенноевремя)”). No. 260( on themedicalexaminationlations in theArmed Forces (inpeacetimeand wartime), 9September 1987, Decree of the MinistryofDefence ofthe Russian Federation,of the Regu concerning theImplementation Фрунзенского районногосудаСанкт-Петербургаот10августа2005 годаподелу1066/05 Judgment oftheFrunzensky Petersburg,10 DistrictCourtofSt. August 2005, No. 1066/05 ( 463 andSoviet-era medicaldoctrine,which limited accessto particular kinds Приказ Минобороны СССР от 9 сентября 1987 г. № 260 “О введении в действие Положения 464 In1997,theRussian Health Ministryimplemented the 466 The plaintiff did not make any allegation Решение 462 ). 465

On On ------3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Conclusions

The overarching conclusion of this report is that the Russian judicial system does not effectively address cases of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the majority of cases concerning discrimina- - crimination had occurred in any meaningful way. The approach of the courts totion cases – either involving explicitly lesbian or implicitlygay bisexual – the and courts transgender did not (LGBT)analyse individualswhether dis is also inconsistent, making it hard to determine trends in judicial reasoning, and is likely to succeed. more significantly, to ascertain when a particular case taken before the courts As Part 1 of the report indicates, the Russian courts are operating within a society where discrimination against persons on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity is deeply entrenched and the matter highly politicised. The process of judicial appointments compromises judicial independence, leaving judges liable to political pressure. Furthermore, the law which judges are applying is itself imperfect and in need of reform to remove provisions which discriminate directly or indirectly and provide full protection from discrimination for progressive interpretation of Russian law by the courts and they are currently fallingmembers short. of the LGBT community. That said, there is significant scope for a more

The inconsistency of approach occurs both between courts and in the approach of individual courts. With some exceptions, courts have generally recognised that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited by the Federal Constitution and through legislation which contains anti-discrimination provisions.1 However, this recognition has little to no positive impact given the way the courts approach the question of whether differential treat- point, courts often erroneously rely on the purported aims of protecting public morals,ment on traditional the basis ofvalues, sexual religious orientation belief in andthe thegiven rights case of is children,justified. toAt holdthis

Thethat approachdiscrimination of the is Constitutional justified. Court, whose decisions are binding on all representative, executive and judicial authorities, is indicative of the inconsistencies that the research has identified. The Constitutional Court has recognised 133 1 See Part 1.6.5. 134 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 5 4 3 2 had beenany discrimination under either Russian or regional or international couple would notbeconsidered immoral. amounted to discrimination as thesharing of similar images of adifferent-sex between persons ofthesamesex”apparentlyand ignoringargumentsthis that tos were “immoral”as they demonstrated “unethically intimate relationships when photos ofherkissinganotherwomanpho the that noting to came light, in thecontextof theright to work, courts have upheldthe dismissal of a teacher ships are often tice of the courts of general jurisdiction demonstrates same-sexthat relation the generalwith line In practhe judicial approach Court, oftheConstitutional to continueto discriminate. LGBT communityinRussia, thisapproach gives the green light to theauthorities authorities tothe ing for account discriminatory restrictionsrights onthe ofthe accordinternational with and European rightshuman standards. Far from hold has wronglyclearly heldthat discriminatory measures against LGBT persons implyments still such thatrelationships are “immoral”. Inaddition, the Court explicitlythat language same-sex labels relationships inanegative way, itsjudg As discussed throughoutPart 2, although used Court hasnot theConstitutional of theminorityLGBT community. considered the views of the majorityasalegitimate reason to restrict the rights tois left theLGBTto community exerciseconcern, theCourt them.Ofparticular severely in the name of “protecting children” that it is difficult to see what scope have theright to freedom of expression and assembly, restricted thoserights so whilemembers of theLGBT notingthat The Court’s judgment, community the federal2014, the Courtheldthat propaganda law was discriminatory. not “propagandahibit of homosexuality”. tution. orientation is contrary to the general equalityclauseof Article 19 of the Consti differencea number ofoccasions on a that intreatmentbased solely onsexual 12750/2015)), discussed inPart 2.6.1. определение PetersburgAppellate decision oftheSt. 3September 2015,No.33-12750/2015 ( City Court, Кировского See JudgmentoftheKirovskiy Petersburg, District Court of St. 21April2015,No.2-1890/2015( See above, Part 2.3.5., Recommendation c(vi)andPart 3.2.2,Recommendation d. Ibid. Российской of theRussian Federation, 16November 2006,No.496-O ( tutional Court didnotaddress SeeDecisionoftheConstitutional Court thediscrimination argument. marriages ascontradicting theequalityclauseofConstitution. However, initsdecisiontheConsti 2013 O ( 2011 ( 24-П № ( 2.1 RussianCourtJudgment oftheConstitutionalof the Federation, 23 September 2014,No.24-P, Para Определение Определение 2 Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2014 года 2014 сентября 23 от Федерации Российской Суда Конституционного Постановление However, ineachcase,theCourt has goneonto upholdlawspro that года года ). SeealsoDecisionoftheConstitutional Court ofRussia, 19January2010,No.151-O-O № 151-О-О); and Decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia, 24 October 2013, No. 1718- № 1718-O). In 2006, a challenge was brought to the lack of legal recognition of same-sex of recognition legal of lack the to brought was challenge a 2006, In 1718-O). №

районного Федерации

Санкт-Петербургского

de facto Постановление

Постановление

суда

от considered asoffensive tomorality. public For example,

Санкт-Петербурга ноября

Конституционного

городского 2006 4

3 года Asisdiscussed in Part2.3, inSeptember

от

№496-О). 5 21 Similarly, the courts did not find there суда апреля

Суда

Суда от 3

Определение Российской 2015 Российской сентября года

по 2015

Федерации Федерации

делу Конституционного года № 2-1890/2015); and and 2-1890/2015); №

по Апелляционное

от от

делу 24 19 Решение октября 33- № января

Суда ------human rights law when a young man had a job offer revoked when his potential justice or complicity? employer found out he was gay.6

That said, there has also been some more positive jurisprudence in the sphere of labour rights. A refusal to employ a lesbian because of her “non-traditional sexual orientation” was found to be unlawful at the district court level because it was not based on relevant grounds for employment.7 Similarly, a different district court found that a diagnosis of “perverse psychopathy” was unlawfully based exclusively on a gay man’s “homosexuality”, which the court found was conclusions and recommendations not a mental disorder but a variant of the normal.8 While these decisions are welcome, they leave little in the way of clear jurisprudence on what the right to non-discrimination entails and in neither case did the court engage with the argument that the treatment in question amounted to discrimination. Further, it is clear from the cases discussed that extremely similar fact situations can lead to opposite results before the courts leaving no legal certainty.

The same inconsistency can also be seen in decisions in other spheres examined in the report. For example, while the right to private life and to non-discrimination has been explicitly noted in cases relating to a change of legal gender,9 a failure to implement the consequences of such a change by providing a new employment record was sanctioned by a justice of the peace.10 Reliance has also been placed on traditional family values in deciding to remove a child from the care of a transgender parent.11 Likewise, contradictions abound in cases involving hate-motivated violence. Although the Constitutional Court has recognised sexual orientation as one of the bases on which aggravated criminal punishment may apply in the context of hate crimes,12 courts are largely failing to recognise or acknowledge homophobic hatred as either an aggravating factor in sentencing, or as an element of a crime where this is provided for in the Criminal Code.13

6 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, 27 November 2015, No. 2-11405/2015 ( The Court instead determined 27 that there was2015 not sufficient proof he had applied for the job. See Judgment of Moscow City Court, 20 April 2016, No. 33-14156/2016 ( Решение Нагатинского районного суда Москвы 20 от 2016ноября года по делу 2-11405/2015; and Appellate decision of the Апелляционное определение Московского 7 городскогоJudgment ofсуда the отZheleznodorozhnyiапреля года Districtпо делу Court № 33-14156/2016),of Novosibirsk, 29discussed July 2016, in Part No. 2.6.1. 2-3186/2016 ( 29 2016 2-3186/2016), discussed in Part 2.6.1. Решение Железнодорожного районного суда Новосибирска от июля года по делу № 8 Judgment of the Frunzensky District Court of St. Petersburg,10 August 2005, No. 1066/05 ( 10 2005 1066/05), discussed in Part 2.6.2. Решение Фрунзенского районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от августа года по делу 9 Judgment of the Rudnichnyi District Court of Prokopievsk of the Kemerovo Oblast, 4 December 2013, No. 2-2490/2013 ( 4 2013 , Решение Рудничного районного суда города Прокопьевска Кемеровской области от 10 Judgmentдекабря of the годаjusticeдело of the № peace 2-2490/2013), of the Ryazan discussed City, 21 in NovemberPart 2.6.2. 2007 ( 21 2007 ), discussed in Part 2.5.5. Решение мирового судьи 11 городаSee PartРязани 2.3.4. от ноября года 12 See Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 23 September 2014, above, note 2, Para. 2.1, and as discussed in Part 2.3.3. 135 13 See the discussion in Part 2.1. 136 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 15 14 of other is thereforecountries. It the recommendations hoped that below will be drawn from theRussian contextare to applicable thesituationinanumber Although therecommendations relate to LGBT rights inRussia, thelessonsto community, andto Russian lawyers and activists advocating for LGBT rights. the Russian authorities (including thejudiciary), the regional andinternational In light oftheforegoing analysis, this Part offers a series of recommendations to 3.2 on how to strengthen thisrole. individuals. Inlight ofthis,thenext Part turnsto recommendations, including are to sometimeswilling play arole incombattingdiscriminationagainst LGBT bleak findings, the limited positive jurisprudence demonstrates that the courts protected ground underArticle19oftheFederal Constitution. transgender persons,genderidentityhasnotbeenexplicitly recognised asa whilealso ofnote thecourtshave that, recognised theright to private life for society andlegitimiseshatred, harassment andviolenceagainst them.Itis bic attitudes.Suchcaselaw contributes to stigmatisationofLGBT inRussian doning discrimination,onmany occasionscourtsdisplay theirown homopho against theLGBT community by theRussian authorities. Inadditionto con On thewhole, thepicture isoneofjudicialsanctioningdiscrimination “extremist” andathreat to nationalsecurity. far asto declare theaimsofRussian organisations advocatingfor LGBT rights as prohibited inthebestinterests ofthechild. courts are prepared toharmless comments label as propaganda which must be tion ofitsadministrator forthe anti-propaganda violating law, demonstrate that for daring to bedifferent from themajoritycangoto hell”, andtheprosecu statementsam proud suchas“I to begay”and “thosewho dare to reproach me The closingdownof thewebsite oftheChildren-404 project, which contained while ostensiblythe protection aimedat ofchildren, are solely discriminatory. that, justifications of basis the on expression of freedom to right the curtail to to propaganda hasbeenupheld. “anti-propagandaforcalling onthebasisthat law” the repeal of the law amounted Evendecision abytoauthority an marcha ban advocatingfor therepealof the lic assemblies advocating for LGBT rights, includingonthebasisof these laws. laws”, courtshave repeatedly sanctionedrefusals by theauthoritiesto holdpub their mostegregious decisions. addition toIn upholding“anti-propaganda of freedom of expression, association and assemblythe courts have that made While many of these decisions may invoke shock, it is arguably inthesphere 17 16

See thediscussion inPart 2.5.5. See thediscussion inPart 2.4.3 and Part 2.4.4. See thediscussioninPart 2.3.3.2andPart 2.3.3.3. discussion above inPart 2.3.4. Тверского Judgment oftheTverskoy District Court ofMoscowof 22January2014, No. 2-1002/14 ( Recommendations

районного

суда

Москвы

от 22 14 Inaddition,courtshave allowed authorities января 2014 15 16 In some cases,courtshave In goneso года

по

делу № 2-1002/14). See also the wider 17 Despite these Решение - - - - prove useful in combatting discrimination against the LGBT community in both justice or complicity? Russia and beyond.

The recommendations cover both the need to interpret Russian legislation in line with international and regional human rights standards, and the need to amend the legislative framework itself. While the latter has not been the focus of the research, it is clear, given the number of discriminatory legal provisions, in the Russian framework must be amended in order to ensure protection from discrimination for LGBT individuals. conclusions and recommendations

The recommendations, which are made are made on the basis of international and regional law on equality and non-discrimination, and on the Declaration of Principles on Equality, are made with the aim of assisting Russia to meet its obli- - tion. Given the scope of the report, the recommendations focus on combatting discriminationgations to respect, against protect the andLGBT fulfil community. the rights However, to equality such and measures non-discrimina should also be taken in relation to all groups who face discrimination.

3.2.1 Recommendations to the Russian Government a. Amendment of the National Legal Framework

Russia should review its national laws to remove provisions that discriminate against LGBT individuals. This should include, but not be limited to, repeal of the following laws:

i) All regional laws (in those constituent entities of the Federation where these laws have been retained) banning “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships”, and any laws providing for administrative liability

ii) Sectionfor such 6.21 actions; of the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for liability for propaganda of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among

iii) Articleminors; 14(1) of the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of

requires measures to be taken to protect children from information that the Child in the Russian Federation” of 24 July 1998 № 124-FZ which

iv) Articlepromotes 5(2)(4) “non-traditional of the Federal sexual Law relationships”; “On protection of children from information harmful to their health and development” of 29 December 2010

№ 436-FZ which prohibits dissemination among children of information v) Articlewhich promotes127(1)(13) “non-traditional and paragraph 6sexual of Article relationships”; 146(1) of the and Family Code of the Russian Federation which prohibit adoption or guardianship by persons who have entered into a same-sex union in a foreign state or by single individuals who are nationals of states where same-sex unions are recognised. 137 138 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 20 19 18 mendations aandb.Inparticular, they should: amendments beingmadeto thecurrentlegal framework in recomas setout ity andnon-discrimination. This is of importanceintheabsence particular standards established by internationaland regional law ontherights to equal laws, includingthecourts,should ensurethey that do so in accordance withthe Those who have theresponsibility for andenforcingimplementing national c. ImplementationandEnforcement oftheExisting Legal Framework for areversal oftheburden ofproof. discrimination positive measures to ensure equality, hibit discriminationareas inall of life regulated by law, require thestate to take dis crimination, harassment and failure indirect to make reasonable accommodation, and direct both encompasses which discrimination of definition best practice.tional non-exhaustivea of protected list characteristics which accordsinterna with on thebasisofsexualgender identity inadditiontoorientation and providing anti-discrimination whichlegislation, should explicitly prohibit discrimination Russia is urged to develop, followingdebate, awidepublic comprehensivelegislation, federal and regional specific repealing or amending to addition In b. Comprehensive Anti-DiscriminationLaw level ofprotection against discriminationthathasalready beenachieved. protection from discrimination, Russia should not allow any regression from the lawsimplementing and adopting In policies to and promoteprovideand equality gender identityandrelated characteristics. vide explicit protection from discrimination on thebasis of sexualorientation, guarantee inArticle19oftheFederalConstitution shouldbe amended to pro and gender identity andrelatedtation characteristics. addition, theequality In istrative Offences, to explicitly cover discrimination on the basis of sexualorien discrimination, such astheLabourCode, Criminal Code the Code and of Admin in appropriatewhichThis includes amendinglegislation legislation. prohibits sexualorientation andgenderidentityrelated characteristics are embodied ensure thattheprinciples of and non-discrimination equality on thebasisof additionto In repealing discriminatory provisions, Russia shouldtake steps to 22 21

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Declaration ofPrinciples onEquality i) , Principle5. Principle 21. Principle 19. Principle 3. prohibitclause, discrimination,equality includingtheconstitutional EnsureLGBT that individualsare protected by existinglaws which 21 andalsoprovide for proceduralsafeguards, suchasallowing 18 Suchlegislationshould, amongst other things, provide a , Equal Rights Trust, London,Principle5. 22 20 prohibit victimisation of persons alleging 19 pro ------through interpretation of these laws to encompass sexual orientation, justice or complicity? gender identity and related characteristics. This includes recognising that LGBT persons are encompassed in notions of a “social group”, “other ii) circumstance”,Interpret existing and laws “other which factors”; provide protection from discrimination to encompass discrimination on the basis of perception and association to provide protection to all those who are perceived to be LGBT or who are

friends, family or otherwise associated with the LGBT community who conclusions and recommendations iii) mayInvestigate also face homophobic discrimination; motivations behind violence and speech to ensure that hate crimes and hate speech against the LGBT community are prosecuted and sentenced as such. Facts that indicate that the perpetrator knew or perceived someone was a member of the LGBT community, should trigger an investigation of the motivation behind the crime iv) orInterpret speech; existing laws prohibiting discrimination to encompass both direct and indirect discrimination, recognising that neutral laws, policies and practices may nonetheless put LGBT individuals at a particular v) disadvantage;Interpret the Federal Law “On Civil Status Acts” as enabling a person to

change their gender on the basis of self-identification, without having to undergo any medical intervention; - vi) Interpret justifications for a difference in treatment strictly, recognis baseding that on justificationsdiscriminatory cannot stereotypes, be based such on as the the views erroneous of the belief majority that discussionor on tradition of same alone. sex Justificationsrelationships foris damaging different totreatment child development. cannot be

are both necessary and proportionate. Thus, measures put in place whichJustifications lead to musta difference seek to inachieve treatment a legitimate must also aim be using strictly means necessary which to achieve the aim for which they are put in place, and measures which are not clearly and directly linked to the aim they propose to achieve or which have a disproportionate impact on the person who is disad-

treatment. In addition, the least intrusive measures which may achieve vantaged should not be considered as justification for a difference in vii) aRestrictions legitimate aimon freedom must be ofpreferred; expression, association and assembly must only be put in place where they seek to achieve a legitimate aim and are strictly necessary and proportionate. Restrictions should never be considered necessary when the link between the restriction and the aim it seeks to achieve is unproven. Restrictions on these rights should be considered the absolute exception, rather than the norm. Restrictions which are placed only on the LGBT community, or which disadvantage 139 140 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST nity, including: of measures to prohibit andeliminate discrimination against theLGBT commu In additionto amendingitslegalframework, Russia shouldadoptawiderange e. Adoption ofotherMeasures to Combat DiscriminationandInequality mum, thestandards outlinedabove underrecommendation c. orientation and gender identity. Suchtraining mustpromote, atthevery mini judges oninternationaland regional humanrights standards related to sexual ing theRussian State University ofJustice,shouldensure adequate trainingof Russian authorities responsible for professional training of the judiciary, includ d. JudicialTraining 23

Gabriela Knaul Human Rights Council, v) iv) iii) ii) i) viii) Raising publicawarenesseducation and ensuring all equality that about measuresImplementing to facilitate reporting by LGBT individuals of Providing training to ombudspersons, the police,prosecutors, and senior Ensuring thatLGBT rights issuesare proactively includedinthemandate Ensuring the independence of the judiciary throughthe implementing institutions, includingprivate institutions,provide suitable educationon tance to disclosesensitive information orotherpersonaldata; discrimination and crimes against theminorder to overcome their reluc tices against theLGBT community; prac discriminatory and discrimination preventing on officials public ing thehumanrights issuesfaced by theLGBT communityinRussia; report ofthefederal ombudsmanshouldincludeaspecialsectionanalys able to carryouttheirwork withoutinterference. Inparticular, theannual (ombudspersons) andensuring thatthese bodiesare independentand of work oftheregional andthefederal commissioners for human rights judges andlawyers inregards to Russia; recommendations of the SpecialRapporteur on theindependence of prove thatnodiscriminationhastaken place. should then require theperson against whom the allegation is made to has beendiscrimination (a discrimination factsestablish from which itmay bepresumedthere that line withtheaforementioned principles;and and proposed justification should be scrutinised with particular care, in the LGBT community, shouldbeconsidered In civilIn matters, when persons whotheythat allege haveto beensubject , 30April2014,UN Doc.A/HRC/26/32/Add.1 Report ofthe Special Rapporteuron the independence ofjudges andlawyers, prima facie case),thecourtsandauthorities 23 . prima facie discriminatory ------equality as a fundamental right, with a view to achieving the elimination justice or complicity? of discriminatory attitudes or behaviours which are related to the idea of the inferiority or superiority of any sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression. This should include the education of children about sexual orientation and gender identity. Children should also have the right to access support projects for LGBT children, including through

vi) Extendinginformal (peer-to-peer) a standing invitation networks; to andthe special procedures of the human conclusions and recommendations rights council to undertake country visits, including the Special Rappor- teur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (who has made a request to visit) and the newly appointed Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

- cial resources are allocated, including to the judiciary and to those bodies whose roleIn implementing includes preventing the above discrimination. measures, Russia should ensure that sufficient finan

3.2.2 Recommendations to the Regional and International Community

Those bodies tasked with implementing and enforcing international and regional law and policy on the rights to equality and non-discrimination, including the special procedures, treaty bodies and agencies of the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights should take a these bodies should: firmer stance against discrimination against the LGBT community. In particular, a) Explicitly recognise that affording the LGBT community “different but equal” treatment in respect of private life and family relationships, does not accord with the rights to equality and non-discrimination. For example, explicitly recognise that any legal regime that is available for the recognition of a different-sex relationship should also be available for same-

b) Explicitlysex relationships recognise – including that a transgender civil marriage; individual’s right to a private life obliges states to recognise their gender without requiring them to undergo medical interventions. Further, explicitly recognise that requiring a person to undergo surgery in order to have their gender recognised

c) Explicitlyamounts to recognise inhuman that treatment; where violence or any other criminal offence against a person occurs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, this must be recognised as an aggravating factor when assessing the severity of the offence under law, and that incitement to violence on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity must be prohibited 141 by law; 142 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST lowing steps: combat discriminationagainst theLGBT community, includingthrough thefol Russian activists andlawyers are encouraged to continueintheirefforts to 3.2.3 b) a) k) j) i) h) g) f) e) d) Recommendations to Russian Activists andLawyers Referring courts to thedecisions Court of whichthe Constitutional rec Ensuring thatviolationsof the prohibitions of discrimination contained Mainstream humanrights of LGBT intheir own dialoguesandalsoin Facilitate andencourage efforts by Russian civil society to provide evi Engagein professional trainingof lawyers on anti-discrimination stand Provide supportto theRussian judiciaryintheexecutionof theirrole on RussiaCall to review andrepealdiscriminatory laws andencourage Provide support totheir full thenewly appointedon IndependentExpert Ensure that their own staff have sufficient training and knowledge on the the against discrimination of justifications against stance firm a Take tification for discriminationagainst aminority; itly recognisingthe views that never ofthemajoritycan to amount jus a LGBT communitybasedontraditionalvalues or religious belief,explic discrimination, including Article19oftheFederal Constitution; sexualognise that orientation isprotected by existing laws prohibiting porting regional and international humanrights law; in Russian law are explicitly argued beforesup with courts,including their dialogueandcooperation withtheRussian authorities. forums; and submissions dence andonLGBT rights ininternationalregionaland ards andraising awareness ofLGBT rights inRussia; and bestpractice; throughtraining judicial internationalon regionaland rightshuman law law; Russia toand enforce implement acomprehensive anti-discrimination visit to Russia; the mandate holder and other special procedures to undertake acountry tion andgenderidentity, andencourage Russia to extendinvitation an to protection against violenceanddiscrimination based onsexualorienta dialogue withRussia onLGBT issues; contextin the tice of sexual togender identity orientation and engagea in of internationalapplication and regional rights human law andbestprac ------c) Ensuring that courts are provided with medical, psychological, educa- justice or complicity? tional or other evidence to demonstrate the fallacy of arguments that discriminatory laws or practices are necessary in order to ensure public safety, the protection of children or on the protection of public or reli- d) Continuinggious morals; to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and other relevant treaty bod- conclusions and recommendations e) Workingies where together Russian courtswith each have other,not delivered and with justice; other activists and lawyers involved in combat discrimination more broadly, to identify gaps and weaknesses in jurisprudence where cases may be taken in order to f) Supportingdevelop positive LGBT jurisprudence; individuals to report crimes and discrimination against them, and to take cases to court, including by seeking to ensure that they g) Supportingreceive the psycho-socialand engaging supportpsychologists, that they lawyers, may require medical to and do so;other professionals, as well as academics in a wide debate on the human rights - logue should foster an understanding of the detrimental impact of dis- criminatorystandards in legislationthe field of andsexual policies orientation on the and human gender rights identity. and wellbeing Such dia h) Monitoringof LGBT individuals and assessing in Russia; the implementation and enforcement of discriminatory legislation by the authorities and the judiciary and reporting problems to relevant government actors, including the ombudspersons, i) Continuingand in relevant to advocate international for the and repeal regional of forums;discriminatory and laws and the need for a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.

143

Bibliography

International and Regional Treaties, Authoritative Interpretations and Guidelines

United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Convention against Discrimination in Education, 429 U.N.T.S. 93, 1960. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Pun- ishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 1984. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13, 1979. Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 2220 U.N.T.S. 3, 1990. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 989 U.N.T.S. 175, 1961. Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, 1989. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2515 U.N.T.S. 175, 1961. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 137, 1951. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 U.N.T.S. 117, 1954. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearanc- es, 2716 U.N.T.S. 3, 2006. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, 1965. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 1966. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De- grading Treatment or Punishment, 2375 U.N.T.S. 237, 2002. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 2131 U.N.T.S. 83, 1999. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, G.A. Res. 66/138, 2011. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of

Children in Armed Conflict, 2173 U.N.T.S. 222, 2000. 145 146 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST European Parliament, Resolution ontheEU’spriorities for theUnited NationsHigh Com Resolutions 1991 года). (СоглашениеСодружества образовании Государств,об Независимых декабря от8 Treaty Establishing theCommonwealth the of StatesIndependent damental Freedoms Council ofEurope, 005, 1950. Convention for theProtection ofHuman Rights andFundamentalFreedoms, C.E.T.S. No. Regional Treaties Rome Statute 2187U.N.T.S. ontheInternational CriminalCourt, 90,2002. International LabourOrganisation, Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention C182, 1999. 1989. InternationalLabour Organisation, IndigenousandTribal Peoples Convention C169, International LabourOrganisation, Forced LabourConvention C29,1930. International LabourOrganisation, Equal Remuneration Convention C100,1951. vention C111,1958. InternationalLabour Organisation, Discrimination (EmploymentCon andOccupation) Other International Treaties 2000. United NationsConvention againstTransnational Organized Crime, 2225 U.N.T.S.209, Universal Declaration ofHumanRights, G.A.Res. 217A(III),1948. and Practices Similarto Slavery, 226U.N.T.S. 3,1956. ConventionSupplementary ontheAbolition of Slavery, theSlave Trade, andInstitutions ing to theabolitionofdeathpenalty, 1642U.N.T.S. 414,1989. ProtocolSecond Optional to theInternationalCovenant on Civil Politicaland Rights aim Children, 2237U.N.T.S. 319,2000. ProtocoltoPrevent, SuppressTraffickingPunish and Persons,in Especially Women and G.A. Res. 63/117,2008. ProtocolOptional to theInternationalCovenant on Economic, and Cultural Social Rights, 171, 1966. ProtocolOptional to theInternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999U.N.T.S. the Convention ontheRights ofPersons withDisabilities,2518U.N.T.S. 283,2006. Child ProstitutionChild Pornography, and 2171 U.N.T.S.Protocol227, 2000. Optional to ProtocolOptional to theConventionon theRights of Children, oftheChildonSale missioner for Refugees sessionsin 2016,2015/3035(RSP), 2016. Protocol to the Convention for the Protection ofHumanRights and Fun , 20March 1952,ETS9. , 8December 1991 - - - - Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1728(2010) on Discrimina- justice or complicity? tion on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, 29 April 2010. United Nations General Assembly, Resolution No. 28/262, Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UN Doc. A/RES/68/262, 1 April 2014.

General Comments and Recommendations

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 13: the Right to bibliography Education, 8 December 1999, E/C.12/1999/10. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, 31 March 2010. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression,UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Liberty and security of person, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The Right to Work (Art. 6 of the Covenant), 6 February 2006, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/18. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (art. 2, para. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 2 July 2009, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/20.

List of Issues and Concluding Observations

Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations: Mongolia, UN Doc. CAT/C/MNG/ CO/1, 20 January 2011. Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations: Poland, UN Doc. CAT/C/POL/CO/4, 16 July 2007. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Romania, UN Doc. CERD/C/ROU/ CO/16-19, 13 September 2010. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Russian Federation, UN Doc. CRC/C/RUS/CO/4-5, 25 Feb- ruary 2014. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the Rus- sian Federation, adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October-23 No- vember 2012), UN Doc. CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, 11 December 2012. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, UN Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, 28 April 2015.

Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Austria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4, 147 Para. 8, 30 October 2007. 148 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST The Equal Rights Trust, Camden Principles on Freedom ofExpression andEquality, Documents ofBestPractice Doc. Human Rights Council, November 2011. uals based on their sexual orientation andgender identity Human Rights laws and practiceson discriminatory andactsofviolence against individ Human Rights Council, orientation andgender identity Human Rightson discriminationandviolence against individuals based ontheir sexual Human Rights Council, ful assemblyandofassociation,MainaKiai, Human Rights Council, ful assemblyandofassociation,MainaKiai, Human Rights Council, association, MainaKiaiassembly andof ful Human Rights Council, and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul Human Rights Council, Special Procedures Add.1, 2September 2013. commitments andreplies presented by the State underreview Russian Federation,Addendum: Viewsonconclusions and/orrecommendations, voluntary RightsHuman Council, Russian Federation RightsHuman Council, Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/Q/7/Add.1, 18December2014. Russian Federation, Addendum: Replies ofthe Russian Federation to the listofissues RightsHuman Committee, Russian Federation RightsHuman Committee, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, 18December2006. Human Rights Committee, CO/2, 31July 2008. Human Rights Committee, Para. 16,18May 2007. RightsHuman Committee, to Sexual Orientation andGenderIdentity, 2008. Yogyakartaof InternationalPrinciples on the Application Human Rights Lawin relation

A/HRC/24/L.7, 20September 2013. UNDoc.A/HRC/24/14, 8July 2013. , CCPR/C/RUS/Q/7, 19August 2014. Report ofthe Special Rapporteur ontheto rights freedom ofpeace Report ofthe Special Rapporteur ontheto rights freedom ofpeace Report ofthe Special Rapporteur ontheto rights freedom ofpeace The rights toThe rights freedompeaceful of assembly association, and of Report ofthe Special Rapporteuron the independence ofjudges Declaration ofPrinciples onEquality Report submitted by the UnitedCommissioner NationsHigh for Report submitted by the UnitedCommissioner NationsHigh for Reportthe of Working Group the on Universal PeriodicReview: Reportthe of Working Group the on Universal PeriodicReview: ConcludingMarino San Observations: Listissues of relation in to theseventh periodic report the of Listissues of relation in to theseventh periodic report the of Concluding Chile Observations: , UNDoc.A/HRC/26/32/Add.1, 30April2014. Concluding United States Observations: ofAmerica, , UNDoc.A/HRC/29/23, 4May 2015. , UN Doc.A/HRC/29/25/Add.3,, 10June2015. 24 April2013,UNDoc.A/HRC/23/39. UN Doc.A/HRC/20/27, 21May 2012. April 2009. , UN Doc.CCPR/C/CHL.CO/5,, , UN Doc. A/HRC/19/41, 17 , London2008. , UNDoc. A/HRC/24/14/ , UNDoc.CCPR/C/SMR/ UN Doc. , UN UN - - - - Other International and Regional Resources justice or complicity?

Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Human Rights and Gender Identity, -

29 July 2009, available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=1476365& direct=true. http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/177/signatures.Council of Europe, “Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 177”, available at: bibliography Council of Europe, “SOGI Database: Glossary”, available at: http://www.coe.int/en/web/ sogidatabase/glossary. www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-states/-/conventions/chartStats/RUS. Council of Europe, “Statistics on signatures and ratifications: Russia”, available at: http:// Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, “Communication from NGOs (GayRussia and Moscow Pride) (15/05/2015) in the case of Alekseyev against Russian Federa- tion (Application No. 4916/07)”, DH-DD(2015)564, 29 May 2015, available at: https:// - rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documen tId=09000016804a7b5f.Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, “Communication from NGOs (“Coming Out”, Russian LGBT Network, ILGA-Europe) (04/02/2014) in the case of Alekseyev against Russian Federation (Application No. 4916/07)”, DH-DD(2014)228, 13 February 2014, available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM-

Content?documentId=09000016804a1d42.Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, “Communication from NGOs (Internation- Out”) (15/05/2015) in the case of Alekseyev against Russian Federation (Application No. 4916/07)”,al Lesbian, DH-DD(2015)565, Gay, Bisexual, Trans 29 May and 2015, Intersex available Association at: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet. (‘ILGA-Europe’) and “Coming -

InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2756047&Sec Mode=1&DocId=2273324&Usage=2.Council of Europe, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of - Human Rights, “Pending cases: current state of execution – Alekseyev v Russia”, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp? CaseTitleOrNumber=alekseyev&StateCode=RUS&SectionCode.Council of Europe, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, “H/Exec(2014)5, Alekseyev v. the Russian Federation”, 16 September 2014, available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Display-

DCTMContent?documentId=09000016805929b8.European Court of Human Rights, Fact Sheet – Hate Speech, June 2016. European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, December 2015. by ILO Director-General Guy Ryder on the occasion of the International Day against HomophobiaILO, “LGBT workers and Transphobia”, entitled to equal 17 May rights 2015, and available benefits at:at thehttp://www.ilo.org/glob workplace: Statement- al/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/ilo-director-general/statements-and-speeches/ WCMS_368652/lang--en/index.htm. 149 150 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation, 30 December 2001, No. года от Федерации Российской кодекс процессуальный (Гражданский Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, 14 November 2002, No. 138-FZ 146-ФЗ). № года 2011 ноября 26 от третья) (Граж- (часть 146-FZ Федерации Российской No. кодекс 2001, данский November 26 III), (Part Federation Russian the of Code Civil лицамиодного между брака прирождении)). пола(определяемого на заключение статью 14 Семейного кодекса Российской Федерации (в части установления запрета determined at the time of birth)). (Законопроект № 790069-6 “О внесении изменений в (with regard to theprohibition ofentering into marriageby thepersonsofsame sex (as FamilyBill No.790069-6“OnamendingArticle 14ofthe Code oftheRussian Federation вАрхангельской издоровьядетей нравственности позащите мерах области”). отдельных “Об закон областной в дополнения и изменений внесении “О 336-24-ОЗ tember 2011, No. 336-24-OZ “ (Закон Архангельской области от 30 сентября 2011 г. № for theProtection ofMorals andtheHealthofChildren intheArkhangelsk Region”, 30Sep Arkhangelsk OblastLaw, “OnIntroducing AmendmentsandAdditions to theRegional Law Legislation www.supcourt.ru/catalog.php?c1=English&c2=Documents&c3=&id=6806. English translationof the Constitutionof the Russian Federation, availableat: http:// 12 декабря 1993года). голосованием всенародным принята Федерации, Российской (Конституция Constitution oftheRussian Federation,enacted byvote popular on12December 1993 1977 ConstitutionoftheUnionSoviet SocialistRepublics. 1936 ConstitutionoftheUnionSoviet SocialistRepublics. Constitution National Law advise Russian Duma to scrap billon‘homosexuality propaganda’”, 1February 2013. experts rights “UN Rights, Human for Commissioner High the of Office Nations, United ?NewsID=13323&LangID=E. 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspxaccessible at: increas “Russia: ingly hostile environmentRights, for NGOs and rights defenders is unacceptable”,Human 14 May for Commissioner High the of Office Nations, United ternal/countries.aspx?CountryCode=RUS&Lang=EN. Russian Federation”, available at:http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyEx United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Reporting status for Sexual inInternational HumanRights Orientation Law andGenderIdentity United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, от правонарушениях административных об Федерации Российской (Кодекс 195-FZ 30декабря2001 года № 138-ФЗ). № 195-ФЗ). Born FreeBorn andEqual: 14 ноября 2002 ноября 14 , 2012. - - - -

Code of State Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation, 24 July 2002, No. 95-FZ justice or complicity?

). (Арбитражный процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации от 24 июля 2002 годаCriminal № 95-ФЗ Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, 18 December 2001, No. 174-FZ ( ). Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации от 18 декабря 2001 годаFederal № Constitutional174-ФЗ Law “On amending the Federal Constitutional Law on the Consti- bibliography tutional Court of the Russian Federation”, 14 December 2015, No. 7-FKZ (Федеральный конституционный закон от 14 декабря 2015 года № 7-ФКЗ”О внесении изменений в Федеральный конституционный закон “О Конституционном Суде Российской Федерации”). Federal Constitutional”). Law “On a State of Emergency” 30 May 2001, No. 3-FKZ (Феде- ральный конституционный закон от 30 мая 2001 года № 3-ФКЗ “О чрезвычайном положенииFederal Constitutional Law “On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation”,

7 February 2011 no. 1-FKZ, (Федеральный конституционный закон от 7 февраля 2011Federal года Constitutional № 1-ФКЗ “О Law судах “On общей the Constitutional юрисдикции Court в Российской of the Russian Федерации”). Federation”, 21

July 1994, No. 1-FKZ (Федеральный конституционный закон от 21 июля 1994 года №Federal 1-ФКЗ Constitutional “О Конституционном Law “On the Суде Judicial Российской System Федерации”). of the Russian Federation”, 31 De- cember 1996. No. 1-FKZ (Федеральный конституционный закон от 31 декабря 1996Federal года Constitutional “О судебной Law системе of 21 РоссийскойMarch 2014, Федерации”, No. 6-FKZ, on пункт admission 3 статьи to the 1). Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and the formation within the Russian Federation of new entities - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol (Федеральный конституционный закон от 21.03.2014 N 6-ФКЗ (ред. от 29.12.2015) “О принятии в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым и образовании в составе Российской Федерации новых субъектов - Республики Крым и города федерального значения Севастополя”).Federal Law “On Basic Principles of Social Care in the Russian Federation”, 28 Decem- ber 2013, No. 442-FZ (Федеральный закон от 28 декабря 2013 года № 442-ФЗ “Об основахFederal Law социального “On international обслуживания treaties граждан of the Russian в Российской Federation”, Федерации”). 15 July 1995, No.

101-FZ, (Федеральный закон от 15 июля 1995 года № 101-ФЗ “О международных договорах Российской Федерации”). Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto”, 30 March 1998, No. 54-FZ. Federal Law “On Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of Health Care of Citizens in the Russian Federation”,

21 November 2011, No. 323-FZ (Федеральный закон «Об основах охраны здоровья гражданFederal Law в Российской “On Trade Unions, Федерации» their Rights от 21 andноября Guarantees 2011 года of their № 323-ФЗ). Activities”, 19 Janu- ary 1996, No. 10-FZ (Федеральный закон «О профессиональных союзах и гарантиях ихFederal деятельности» Law of 20 Julyот 19 2012, января No. 1996 121-FZ, года amending № 10-ФЗ0). the Law on Non-Commercial Or- 151 ganisations and the Code of Administrative Offences (Федеральный закон от 20 июля 152 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST изменений в статью 5 Федерального закона «О защите детей от информации, информации, от детей защите «О закона Федерального 5 статью в изменений 135-ФЗ года№ 2013 июня от29 закон (Федеральный 135-FZ No. 2013, to protect children from theinformation propandasing thedenialoffamily values”, 29June informationharmful to theirhealthanddevelopment”legislative andcertain actsinorder Federal Law “OnAmendingArticle5oftheFederal Law “Onprotection ofchildren from н Federal Law, “On Non-Commercial Organisations”, 12 January 1996, No. 7-FZ, (Федераль- деятельности”). ральный закон от 25 июля 2002 года № 114-ФЗ Federal Law, “OnCountering Extremist Activities”, 25July 2002,No.114-FZ( основных гарантияхправребенкавРоссийскойФедерации» 124-ФЗ года№ 1998 июля 24 отзакон (Федеральный 124-FZ No. July1998, 24 FederalLaw, Basic Guarantees “On oftheRights oftheChildinRussian Federation”, 54-ФЗ № года 2004 собраниях, митингах,демонстрациях,шествияхипикетированиях июня 19 от закон (Федеральный of 54-FZ No. 2004, June FederalLaw, Assemblies, Meetings,Demonstrations, “On Marches and Picketing”19 и развитию» года436-ФЗ № velopment”, 29 December 2010, No. 436-FZ (Федеральный закон от 29 декабря 2010 Federal Law, protection “On of children from information harmful to their health andde информации, информационныхтехнологияхиозащитеинформации No. 149-FZ, 27 July 2006 ( FederalLaw, Information, “On Information Technologies and Protection ofInformation”, от состояния” актахгражданского “Об 15ноября1997года №143-ФЗ). Federal Law on Civil Status Acts of 15 November 1997 No. 143-FZ (Федеральный закон акты законодательные вопросам устройства детей-сирот и отдельныедетей, оставшихся без попечения родителей в изменений законот(Федеральный 2 167-FZ No. 2013, cerning legalarrangements of orphansandchildren parentalwithout left care, 2July Federallaw on Amendmentsto CertainLegislative Acts oftheRussian Federationcon судопроизводства РоссийскойФедерации 22-ФЗ № года 2015 марта (Федеральн 22-FZ No. 2015, MarchFederation”Russian 8 the of of ings FederalLaw the Procedure “On ofEnforcement of The Code for Administrative Proceed Федерального СобранияРоссийскойФедерации 229-ФЗ № года 2012 декабря 3 от закон (Федеральный 229-FZ No. 2012, Federation”,RussianDecember the 3 of of bly Federal Lawthe Procedure “On of Forming of the Federation Councilof the Federal Assem в изменений внесении “О отдельные 129-ФЗ законодательные актыРоссийской Федерации”). № года 2015 мая 23 от закон (Федеральный Federal Law of 23 May 2015, No. 129-FZ, amending theCriminal Code and other laws некоммерческих деятельности выполняющихфункциииностранногоагента”).организаций, регулирования части в Федерации Российской отдельныев изменений законодательныеакты внесении “О 121-ФЗ года№ 2012 причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию» и отдельные законодательные акты акты законодательные отдельные и развитию» и здоровью их вред причиняющей ый законот12января1996 года№7-ФЗ“Онекоммерческихорганизациях” ).

“ О защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью их вред причиняющей информации, от детей защите О Федеральный закон от 27 июля 1996 года № 149-ФЗ № года 1996 июля 27 от закон Федеральный “ О введении в действие Кодекса административного Кодекса действие в введении О

“ О порядке формирования Совета Федерации Совета формирования порядке О ” июля ). “О “О противодействии экстремистской ”). 2013 осйкй ееаи по Федерации Российской года № года ). 167-ФЗ “О внесении “О 167-ФЗ ”). ый закон от 8 от закон ый «О внесении внесении «О ” ) . Феде- ). «Об “ «О Об ” ). - - - - justice or complicity? ). Российской Федерации в целях защиты детей от информации, пропагандирующей отрицаниеFederal Law традиционных “On Amending the семейных Criminal ценностей» Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Leg- islative Acts of the Russian Federation”, 7 December 2011, No. 420-FZ (Федеральный закон от 7 декабря). 2011 года № 420-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и отдельные законодательные акты Российской Kaliningrad Oblast Law, “On Amendments to the Law of the Kaliningrad region “Kalin- Федерации» bibliography ingrad Region Code of Administrative Offences”, 30 November 2013, No. 196 (Закон Калининградской области от 30 января 2013, г. № 196, “О внесении дополнений в Закон Калининградской области “Кодекс Калининградской области об административныхKostroma Oblast Law, правонарушениях”). “On Amendments to the Law of the Kostroma Region on Guaran- tees of Child Rights in the Kostroma Region and the Code of Administrative Offences of the Kostroma Region”, 15 February 2012, No. 193-5-ZKO, (Закон Костромской области от 15 февраля 2012, г. № 193-5-ЗКО “О внесении изменений в Закон Костромской области “О гарантиях прав ребенка в Костромской области” и Кодекс Костромской областиKrasnodar об Kray административных Law, “On Amendments правонарушениях”). to Certain Legislative Acts of the Krasnodar Ter- ritory in the strengthening of the protection of health and spiritual and moral development of children”, 3 July 2012, No. 2535-KZ (Закон Краснодарского края от 3 июля 2012, г. № 2535-КЗ, “О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Краснодарского края в части усиления защиты здоровья и духовно-нравственного развитияLabour Code детей”). of the Russian Federation, 30 December 2001, No. 197-FZ ). (Трудовой кодексLaw of St. Российской Petersburg Федерации “On Special, Transportationот 30 декабря 2001Services года, for № Selected 197-ФЗ Categories of Cit- izens in St. Petersburg”, 5 July 2006, No. 397-60 (Закон Санкт-Петербурга от 5 июля 2006 года № 397-60 “О специальном транспортном обслуживании отдельных категорийLaw of St. Petersburg, граждан в “OnСанкт-Петербурге”). Amendments to the Law of St. Petersburg on Administrative

Offences in St. Petersburg”, 7 March 2012, No. 108-18 (Закон Санкт-Петербурга от 7 марта 2012 г. № 108-18, “О внесении изменений в Закон Санкт-Петербурга “Об административных правонарушениях в Санкт-Петербурге”). Law of the Kaliningrad Oblast, 20 February 2014, No. 300 (Закон Калинградской областиLaw of the от 20Krasnoyarsk февраля 2014 Region года, “On № Protection 300). of Public Morals”, 20 June 1995, No.

6-129,Law of (“Обthe Republic охране общественной of Bashkortostan, нравственности”). “On Amending the Law of the Republic of Bash- kortostan on Basic Guarantees of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Bashkortostan”,

23 July 2012, No. 581-Z (Закон Республики Башкортостан от 23 июля 2012, г. № 581-З, “О внесении изменения в Закон Республики Башкортостан “Об основных гарантияхLaw of the Republic прав ребенка of Dagestan, в Республике “On Amendments Башкортостан”). to the Law of the Republic of Dagest- an on Protection of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Dagestan”, 19 March 2014, No. 153 154 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Vladimir Oblast Law,Vladimir Oblast Amendments to “On Article 5 of the Law of Vladimir region on кодекс Российской Федерации,№223-ФЗ,от 29декабря1995г). FamilyThe Russianthe Code of Federation, December 1995(Семейный 223-FZ, 29 No. кодекс РоссийскойФедерации (частьпервая TaxCode of theRussian Federation(part 1),31July 1998, No. 146-FZ (“ г. №96-ОЗ,ОвнесенииизмененийвОбластнойзакон ребенка”). прав защите “О child”, 17 October 2013, No. 96-OZ (Закон Свердловской области от 17 октября 2013, Sverdlovsk Law, Oblast amendments to “On the regional law onprotection of rights of the Самарскойна территории области”). внесении “О 75-ГД № г. 2012, правонарушениях административных “Об ЗаконСамарскойобласти в изменений июля 10 от области Самарской (Закон 75-GD No. SamaraLaw, Oblast administrative “On offences in theSamara Oblast”, 10July 2012, нравственности детейвРязанскойОбласти”,от3апреля 2006года,№41-ОЗ) Oblast”, 3April2006, No. 41-OZ RyazanLaw, Oblast the protection “On of children’s healthandmoralityin theRyazan года, №66-ОЗ 2006 июня 15 от правонарушениях», административных «Об области Рязанской RyazanLaw, Oblast Administrative “On Offences”, 15 June 2006, No. 66-OZ ( изменений вотдельные законы Новосибирской области”). внесении “О г.226-ОЗ 2012, № июня 14 от области Новосибирской (Закон 226-OZ интеллектуальное, физическое, NovosibirskLaw, Oblast их amending Novosibirsk “On laws”, Oblast 14 June 2012, No. на влияющих психическое, духовное инравственное развитие”). негативно факторов, от несовершеннолетних в защиты изменений части внесении в “О области 1507-ОЗ Магаданской законы № отдельные г. 2012 июня 9 от (Закон области 1507-OZ Магаданской No. 2012, June 9 development”, moral and spiritual mental, lectual, of theprotection ofminors from thefactorsnegatively that affect theirphysical,intel MagadanLaw, Oblast Amendments to“On CertainLawsMagadan ofthe region interms Конституции Российской Федерации»). к поправке «О года 2014 февраля 5 от Федерации Российской (Закон Constitution Law of the Russian Federation of 5 February 2014, No. 2-FKZ amending theFederal Конституции Российской Федерации»). (ЗаконConstitution Российской от Федерации года 2008 декабря 30 поправке«О к Lawof theRussian Federationof 30December 2008, No. 6-FKZ,amendingtheFederal кодекс РСФСРиИсправительно-трудовойРСФСР» Уголовно-процессуальный РСФСР, кодекс Уголовный в дополнений и изменений 4901-1 № года 1993 Апреля 29 от Федерации Российской (Закон 1 of the Criminal Procedure and theRSFSR Penitentiary Code”, of 29 April 1993, No. 4901- Law of the Russian FederationAmending theRSFSR “On CriminalCode, the RSFSR Code 1 «Остатусе судей вРоссийской Федерации»). June 1992, No. 3132-1 (Закон Российской Федерации от 26 июня 1992 года № 3132- LawRussianof the Federationof JudgesintheRussianthe Status “On Federation”,26 в Закон Республики ребенкавРеспублике прав защите Дагестан“О Дагестан”). изменений внесении г. “О 2014, марта17 19 от№ Дагестан Республики (Закон 17 measures for the protection of morals andhealth of children intheVladimir region”, 13 ). (Закон Рязанской области “О защите здоровья и здоровья защите “О области Рязанской (Закон )” от 31июля 1998года №146-ФЗ). ). «О внесении «О Налоговый Закон . - justice or complicity?

November 2012, No. 145-OZ (Закон Владимирской области от 13 ноября 2012, г. № 145-ОЗ “О внесении изменения в статью 5 Закона Владимирской области “О мерах по защите нравственности и здоровья детей во Владимирской области”). Draft and Model Laws

Draft Law “On Amending the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation”, bibliography 29 October 2015, No. 916716-6 (Законопроект от 29 октября 2015 года №. 916716-6 “О внесении изменений в Кодекс Российской Федерации об административных правонарушениях”).Model Law, “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development”, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Member States to the Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS), Decision of 3 December 2009,

No. 33-15 (Модельный закон о защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию, Принят на тридцать третьем пленарном заседании Межпарламентской Ассамблеи государств-участников СНГ Постановлением от 3 декабря 2009 года, № 33-15). National Policies, Government Decisions, State Reports and Regulations

Decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 17 December 1933 (Решение Всероссийского центрального исполнительного комитета от 17 декабря 1933 года).Decision of the Committee for Architecture and Urban Development of the St. Petersburg Government, “On Approval of Architecture and Artistic Rules for Objects for Displaying In- formation and Standard Objects for Displaying Information in St. Petersburg”, 30 April 2014

(Распоряжение Комитета по градостроительству и архитектуре Правительства Санкт-Петербурга от 30.04.2014 N 4-н “Об утверждении архитектурно-художест- венного регламента объектов для размещения информации и типовых объектов дляDecision размещения of the Government информации of the в RepublicСанкт-Петербурге”). of Udmurtia of 25 June 2012, No. 523-r, on the

State Report of the Status of Youth in the Republic of Udmurtia in 2011 (Распоряжение Правительства УР от 25.06.2012 N 523-р “О государственном докладе о положении молодежиDecision of вthe Удмуртской Head of the Республике Kumenskiy вDistrict 2011 году”). of the Kirov Oblast, “On Approval of In- ternal Labour Rules in Local Government Bodies of the Kumenskiy Municipal District”, 6 February 2007, No. 2 (

Распоряжение Главы Куменского района Кировской области от 6 февраля 2007 года № 2 “Об утверждении Правил внутреннего трудового распорядка в органах местного самоуправления Куменского муниципального района”). Decision of the Investigating Officer of the Police Department of St. Petersburg, 9 July 2013, No. 76 (Постановление дознавателя отдела полиции Санкт-Петербурга от 9 июляDecision 2013 of года,the Investigator № 76). of the Central District of the St. Petersburg Main Inves- tigating Department of the Investigating Committee of Russia, 11 December 2014 155 156 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST o 39/5 “ нпални ооеи Рсулкнкй благотворительной Республиканской Положения направлении (“О 3199/15 No. ing theProvisions ofRepublicanCharity Action Spring Goodness Week, 3March 2015, Letter of theMinistryEducation andScience oftheRepublicof Tatarstan, on Send года № 14794-52). 2016 мая 23 от Федерации Российской в человека правам по Уполномоченного аппарата отношений международных отдела начальника Нояновой, О. (Письмо missioner for RightsHuman in theRussian Federation, 23 May 2016, No. 14794-52 Letter of Ms. O. Noyanova, Head of the InternationalRelations High Com Department, и коммунальных услуг”). помещения жилого оплату на субсидий предоставления Правил применению по Минздравсоцразвития России № 403 от 26 мая 58, 2006 года Методических “Об утверждении рекомендаций № России Минрегиона (Приказ 2006 May 26 403, No. velopmentof Russia, Development No.58andMinistryofHealthSocial of Russia, Joint Order onsubsidised housing payments issued by theMinistryofRegionalDe год, 2015). 2014 за Доклад Федерации. Российской в человека правам по (Уполномоченный High Commissioner forRights Human intheRussian Federation, инструктивного утверждении “Об Крымском округе”федеральном со100-процентнымохватом населения 512 в “Перепись № наблюдения года статистического федерального 2014 материала августа 12 от Росстата Federal Service of State Statistics on the census in the Crimean Federal District (Приказ отФедерации 12мая 2008года №724). Decree of the President of Russia of 12 May 2008, No. 724 (Указ Президента Российской в Вооруженных СилахСССР (намирноеивоенноевремя)”). г. № 260 “О введении в действие Положения о медицинском освидетельствовании wartime), 9 September 1987, No. 260 (Приказ Минобороны СССР от 9 сентября 1987 tion of the Regulations onthemedicalexamination intheArmed Forces (in peacetimeand Decree oftheMinistry of Defence oftheRussian Federation, concerningtheImplementa года). 2010 ноября 20 от Тюменскойобласти Управления(Решениепо России Минюста Decision of the Tyument Department of the Ministry Oblast Justice, 20 November 2010 № года 2010 декабря целевойпрограмме“Жилище”на2015-2020 годы”).1050 “Офедеральной 17 от РФ Правительства (Постановление families” young to housing of “Provision Subprogramme 1050, No. 2010, December for 2020”,17 – ‘Housing’ 2015 Programme Targeted Federal “On Government Russian the of Decision 2013 года). (Постановление Прокурора центрального района Санкт-Петербурга от 20 ноября Decision of the Prosecutor of the Central Petersburg, District of St. 20 November 2013 2010 года). января 12 от Москве городу по России Минюста Главного управления (Решение Decision Department forof theMain Moscowof theMinistryJustice,12January2010 2014 года). следственного Главного декабря района 11 от Санкт-Петербургу по России Комитета Следственного управления Центрального следователя (Постановление акции “Весенняя неделядобра”). ” ). Report2014 , 2015 , - - - - Letter of the Ministry of Health Care of Russia of 30 May 2016 no. 15-1/10/1-2853 justice or complicity?

“On the rules of visiting the relatives of patients in intensive care unit” (Письмо Минздрава России от 30 мая 2016 года № 15-1/10/1-2853 “О правилах посещения родственниками пациентов в отделениях реанимации и интенсивной терапии”). Letter of the Russian President of 24 December 1991 (Письмо Президента Российской ФедерацииNote verbale от by 24 the декабря Ministry 1991 of Foreign года). Affairs of the Russian Federation dated 13 Jan- bibliography uary 1992, transmitting the letter of the Russian President of 24 December 1991 (Нота МинистерстваOmbudsman of иностранныхthe Perm Region, дел Problems Российской of Domestic Федарации and Familyот 13 января Violence 1992, 30 Decem года).- ber 2008 (ОтчетУполномоченного по правам человека в Пермском крае «Проблемы домашнего и семейного насилия). Order of Health Care Department of the Vladimir Oblast, “On establishing an adviso- ry council on medical ethics and medical deontology at the Health Care Department of the Administration of the Vladimir Oblast”, 19 June 2013, No. 1105 (“О создании Общественного совета по медицинской этике и медицинской деонтологии при департаментеOrder of the Health здравоохранения Ministry of Russia администрации “On Adopting Владимирскойby the health care области”). organisations of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th the Russian Federation health facilities of the International Statistical Classification of revision” of 27 May 1997, No. 170 (Приказ Минздрава России от 27 мая 1997 года № 170 «О переходе органов и учреждений). здравоохранения Российской Федерации на Международную статистическую классификациюOrder of the Ministry болезней for Regional и проблем, Development связанных of Russia,со здоровьем “On Establishing Х пересмотра» a Working Group on Increasing Investing Attractiveness of Regions of the Russian Federation”, 30

January 2013, No. 25, Para 3.28 (Приказ Минрегиона России от 30.01.2013 № 25 “О создании Рабочей группы по повышению инвестиционной привлекательности регионовOrder of the Российской Ministry ofФедерации”). Economics of the Republic of Mordovia, “On approving the Scheme for interaction while implementing state-supported projects”, 30 April 2014, 2014

No. 67-p, (Приказ Минэкономики Республики Мордовия от 30 апреля года № 67-п “О схеме взаимодействия при реализации инвестиционных проектов с государственнойOrder of the Ministry поддержкой/государственным of Economics of the Republic участием”). of Udmurtia, “On approving the Scheme for interaction while implementing state-supported projects”, 30 May 2014, No. 2014

152 (Приказ Минэкономики Удмуртской Республики от 30 мая года № 152 “Об утверждении Схемы взаимодействия при реализации проектов с господдержкой/ госучастием”).Order of the Rosstat, “On approval of the documents for the Russian national census in 2010”, 21 May 2010, No. 198 (Приказ Росстата от 21 мая 2010 года № 198 “Об утвержденииResolution of the документов Provisional Всероссийской Government on переписиdeclaring населенияRussia a Republic 2010 года»)., 1 September

1917 (Постановление Временного правительства о провозглашении России республикой, от 1 сентября 1917 года). 157 158 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Goodwin vthe United Kingdom gium” v. Belgium, Case “Relating to Certain Aspectsofthe Laws on the useofLanguages inEducation inBel 48537/99, 22October 2002. Beck,Copp andBazeley vtheUnited Kingdom cated Case, 10 October 2013, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-128180. Bayev andOthersv Russia Bączkowski andOthers vPoland, Anchugov andGladkov vRussia, Alekseyev vRussia May 2008, Statement of Facts, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113100. AleksanderZhdanov andRainbow HousevRussia at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153722. A.P. vFrance A vUnited Kingdom, Regional Jurisprudence CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000, 18September 2003. RightsHuman Committee, Doc. CCPR/C/112/D/2029/2011, 10October 2014. Human Rights Committee, A/57/40 at214,17July 2002. Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010, 19November 2012. Human Rights Committee, International Jurisprudence Hämäläinen v Finland Grant vthe United Kingdom Gas andDuboisvFrance, lable at:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153718. Garçon vFrance 27 July 2010. Fedotova andShipitko vRussia Erbakan vTurkey E.B. vFrance 2006. Christian Democratic People’s vMoldovaParty 2126/64, 9February 1967. , Application No. 79885/12, , Application Communicated Case 18 March 2015, available , ApplicationNo.43546/02,22January2008. , Application No. 52471/13, , Application Communicated Case 18 March 2015, avai , ApplicationNo.59405/00,6July 2006. , Application No. 4916/07, 25924/08, Application and 14599/09, 21 October 2010. Application No 1474/62, Application 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, and CaseNo.100/1997/884/1096 , ApplicationNo. 37359/09,16July 2014. Application No.25951/07,15 March 2012. , Application No. 67667/09, , Application 44092/12, 56717/12, Communi Joslin vNew Zealand Sergey Praded v Belarus , no.32570/03, ECHR2006-VII. YoungAustralia,v Irina Fedotova v Russia, , Application No. 40792/10, , Application 30538/14, 43439/14, lodged [GC],ApplicationNo.28957/95, ECHR2002VI. ApplicationNo.11157/04and15162/05,4July 2013. ApplicationNo.1543/06,3May 2007. , Application No. 48535/99, 48536/99 , Application and , Application no. 28793/02, , Application 14 February Communication No. 941/2000, Communication UN Doc. , CommunicationNo. 902/1999, UN Doc. , Application No. 12200/08, lodged 3 Application , , Communication No. 2029/2011, UN , 23 September 1998. Communication No.1932/2010, - - - Handyside v United Kingdom, Application no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976. justice or complicity? Identoba and Others v Georgia, Application No. 73235/12, 12 May 2015. Jersild v Denmark, Application No. 15890/89, 23 September 1994. Kiyutin v Russia, Application No. 2700/10, 10 March 2011. Kozak v Poland Application No. 13102/02, 2 March 2010. L. v Lithuania, Application No. 27527/03, 31 March 2008. Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, Application No. 57818/09, 22 January 2013, Statement bibliography ofLingens Facts, v available Austria, Applicationat: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-116762. No. 9815/82, 8 July 1986. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v the United Kingdom, Application No. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 September 1999. MC and AC v Romania, Application No. 12060/12, 12 April 2016. MC v Bulgaria, Application No. 39272/98, 4 December 2003. Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v Georgia, Applica- tion No. 71156/01, 3 May 2007. Mikhaylova v Russia, Application No. 46998/08, 19 November 2015. Mudric v Moldova, Application No. 74839/10, 16 July 2013. Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, Application No. 43577/98 and 43579/98, 6 July 2005. Nicot v France Application No. 52596/13, Communicated Case, 18 March 2015, available at:Novruk http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153720. and Others v Russia, Applications Nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, 15 March 2016. Oliari and Others v Italy, Application Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015. P.B. and J.S. v Austria, Application No. 18984/02, 22 July 2010. P.V. v Spain, Application No. 35159/09, 30 November 2010 (in French only). Pajić v Croatia, Application No. 68453/13, 23 February 2016. Peck v United Kingdom, Application No. 44647/98, 28 January 2003. Perkins and R v the United Kingdom, Application No. 43208/98 and 44875/98, 22 Octo- ber 2002. Ramazanova and Others v Azerbaijan, Application No. 44363/02, 1 February 2007. S.L. v Austria, Application No. 45330/99, 9 January 2003. S.V. v Italy, Application No. 55216, Communicated Case, 20 March 2016, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161936.Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal, Application No. 33290/96, 21 December 1999. Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Application No. 30141/04, 24 June 2010. Silver v the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75 and 7136/75, 25 March 1983. 159 160 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST ление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 19 января 2010 № 151- № 2010 января 19 от Федерации СудаРоссийскойКонституционного ление (Опреде- 151-O-O No. 2010, January 19 Court, Constitutional Russian the of Decision Консти- Судатуционного (Определение 26-O No. 1995, May 17 Court, Constitutional the of Decision Конституционного Суда от РФ 17декабря2009года №1665-О-О). (Определение 1665-O-O No. 2009, December 17 Court, Constitutional the of Decision 1276 -О). № 2015 июня 9 от Суда Федерации КонституционногоРоссийской (Определение Decision Court oftheRussianof theConstitutional Federation,9 June2015, No. 1276-O 1248-О ( Russianof the Court Decision Constitutional of the Federation,28 June2012, No. 1248-O № 1718-О). (Опре- 1718-O No. 2013, деление OctoberКонституционного Суда Российской Федерации 24 от, 24 октября Russia, 2013 года, of Court Constitutional the of Decision (Определение Конституционного Суда135-O Российкой Федерацииот 5июля2001года №135-О). No. 2001, July 5 Russia, of Court Constitutional the of Decision Федерации”). Российской кодекса Семейного 12 статьи 1 пунктом прав “Об конституционных его 496-О № г. 2006 ноября отказе 16 в принятии к рассмотрению жалобы гражданина Э. Мурзина от на нарушение РФ Суда Конституционного (Определение Decision of the ConstitutionalCourt of Russia, 16 November 2006, No. 496-O Конституционного Суда Российской Федерацииот 12мая2006года №155-О). (Определение 155-O No. 2006, May 12 Russia, of Court Constitutional the of Decision Constitutional Court National Jurisprudence 13 August 1981. Young,James And Webster vthe United Kingdom, X, YandZvUnited Kingdom X andOthers vAustria Vejdeland andOthers vSweden Van Kück vGermany 1991. The Sunday Times vTheUnited Kingdom (No 2) ber 2009. TebietiMühafizeCemiyyeti IsrafilovAzerbaijanand v September 1999. Smith andGrady vthe United Kingdom О-О). Определение Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 28 июня 2012 № 2012 июня 28 от Федерации Российской Суда Конституционного Определение ). Российской Федерацииот 17мая1995года№26-О). , ApplicationNo.35968/97,ECHR2003VII. , ApplicationNo.19010/07,19February 2013. , ApplicationNo.21830/93,22April1997. , ApplicationNo.1813/07,9February 2012. , Application No. 33985/96 , Application and 33986/96, 27 , Application No. 13166/87, , Application 26 November Application Nos. 7601/76 Application and 7806/77, , Application No. 37083/03, , Application8Octo - Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 20 April 2006, No. 4-P justice or complicity?

(Постановление Консти- туционного Суда Российской Федерации от 20 апреля 2006 года № 4-П). Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Russia, 11 March 2008, No. 4-P (Постановление КонституционногоJudgment of the Constitutional Суда Российской Court of ФедерацииRussia, 8 April от 2014, 11 марта No. 10-P, 2008 regarding года № 4-П). the “foreign agents” law (Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации отJudgment 8 апреля of the2014 Constitutional года № 8-П). Court of the Russian Federation, 19 April 2016, No. 12-P bibliography

(Постановление Конституционноо Суда Российской Федерации от 19 апреля 2016 годаJudgment № 12-П). of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 14 July 2015, No. 21-P

(Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 14 июля 2015 №Judgment 21-П). of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 15 December 2011,

No. 28-P (Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 15 декабряJudgment 2011 of the года Constitutional № 28-П). Court of the Russian Federation, 27 June 2012, No. 15-P

(Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 27 июня 2012 годаJudgment № 15-П). of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 28 May 2010, No. 12-P

(Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 28 мая 2010 годаJudgment № 12-П). of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, 23 September 2014,

No. 24-P (Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2014 года № 24-П). Judgment of the Constitutional Court, 27 February 2009, No. 4-P (Постановление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 27 февраля 2009 года № 4-П). Judgment of the Constitutional Court, 4 April 1996, No. 9-P (Постановление Конституционного Суда РФ от 4 апреля 1996 года № 9-П). Supreme Court

Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 10 December

2013, No. 59-APG13-5 (Апелляционное определение Верховного Суда Российской ФедерацииDecision of theот 10Plenary декабря Session 2013 ofгода the по Supreme делу № Court 59-АПГ13-5). of the Russian Federation, “On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of Generally Recognised Principles and Norms of International Law and International Treaties of the Russian Federation”,

10 October 2003, No. 5 (Постановление Пленума Верховного Суда Российской Федерации от 10 октября 2003 года № 5 “О применении судами общей юрисдикции общепризнанных принципов и норм международного права и международных договоровDecision of theРоссийской Plenary Session Федерации”). of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, “On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention for the Protection of Hu- 161 162 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST года по делу№33-1472/2014). 2014 сентября 8 отсуда областного Костромского определение (Апелляционное Appellate decision of theKostroma8 September 2014, No. 33-1472/2014 Court, Oblast года по делу№33-51/2015). 2015 января 19 от суда областного Костромского определение (Апелляционное Appellate decision oftheKostroma19 January2015, No.33-51/2015 Court, Oblast года поделу№33-1401/2014). 2014 сентября 1 отсуда областного Костромского определение (Апелляционное Appellate decision of theKostroma1 September 2014, No. 33-1401/2014 Court, Oblast 2014 июля 30 года поделу№.33-4619/2014). от суда областного Хабаровского определение (Апелляционное Appellate Decision of theKhabarovsk Regional 30JulyCourt, 2014, No. 33-4619/2014 ноября 2010года 1 поделу№33-5258/2010). от суда областного Архангельского определение (Апелляционное 5258/2010 1 November Appellate Decision oftheArkhangelskCourt, Oblast 2010, No. 33- the Oktyabrskiy DistrictofRyazan, 6April2009. againstAppeal thejudgmentof the Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 18 of Other Courts делу №78-АПГ12-16). по года 2012 октябряВерховного Суда3 от(Определение Российской Федерации Decision of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 3 October 2012, No. 78-АПГ12-16 Верховного Суда Российской Федерации от 6 декабря 2013 года,(Определение по делу 6-AD13-1 No. 2013, December 6 46-АПГ13-2 Russia, of Court Supreme the of No. Decision 2013, February 27 Russia, делу, №46-АПГ13-2 of Court Supreme ( the 87-АПГ12-2 of No. Decision 2012, November 7 Russia, делу, №87-АПГ12-2). of Court по года Supreme2012, от,ноября СудаВерховного Федерации Российской7 (Определение the of Decision № делу по года 2012 августа 15 1-АПГ12-11). от Федерации Российской Суда Верховного Decision of the Supreme Court of Russia, 15 August 2012, при No. 1-АПГ12-11 (Определение практике судебной в возникших применении Жилищного кодекса Российской Федерации”). вопросах, некоторых “О 14 N 02.07.2009 от РФ Суда Верховного Пленума (Постановление 14 No. 2009, July Federation”, 2 in judicialpractice withregard toof theHousing Code theapplication of theRussian ResolutionSupremeSession ofthe of thePlenary CourtofRussiacertain issues “On человека иосновныхсвободот 4ноября1950года иПротоколов кней прав защите о Конвенции юрисдикции общей судами применении “О года 2013 июня 27 от 21 № СудаВерховного Пленума (Постановление 21 No. 2013, June 27 Rightsman andFundamentalFreedoms of 4November 1950 and theProtocols thereto”, Определение Верховного Суда Российской Федерации от, 27 февраля 2013, года по года 2013, февраля 27 от, Федерации Российской Суда Верховного Определение ).

№ 6-АД13-1). ” ). Appellate decision of the Moscow City Court, 20 April 2016, No. 33-14156/2016 justice or complicity?

(Апелляционное определение Московского городского суда от 20 апреля 2016 годаAppellate по делу Decision № 33-14156/2016). of the Moscow City Court, 20 December 2010, No. 33-39388/2010

(Апелляционное определение Московского городского суда от 20 декабря 2010 годаAppellate по делу Decision № 33-39388/2010). of the St. Petersburg City Court, 22 May 2013, No. 33-18289/13 bibliography

(Апелляционное определение Санкт-Петербургского городского суда от 22 мая 2013Appellate года decisionпо делу №of 33-18289/13).the St. Petersburg City Court, 25 November 2014, No. 33-

19356/2014 (Определение Санкт-Петербургского городского суда от 25 ноября 2014Appellate года decision№ 33-19356/2014). of the St. Petersburg City Court, 3 September 2015, No. 33-

12750/2015 (Апелляционное определение Санкт-Петербургского городского судаAppellate от 3 сентябряdecision of2015 the года Sverdlovsk по делу Oblast № 33-12750/2015). Court, 3 June 2015, No. 33-7597/2015

(Апелляционное определение Свердловского областного суда от 03.06.2015 по делуAppellate N 33-7597/2015). Decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21 November 2012, 33-13906/2012 33-13906/2012). (Определение Свердловского областного суда от 21 ноября 2012 года по делу № Application to the Central District Court of Tyument, 23 March 2011, No. 2-1529/2011

(Заявление в Центральный районный суд Тюмени, дело № 2-1529/2011). Astrakhan Oblast Court, 29 June 2015, (Апелляционное определение Астраханского областногоDecision of судаSt Petersburg от 29 июня City 2015 Court, года). 17 September 2015, No. 3/10-332/2015

(Постановление Санкт-Петербургского городского суда от 17 сентября 2015 года поDecision делу, №of 3/10-332/2015). the Altayskiy Regional Court, 13 January 2016, No. 33-198/2016 198/2016). (Определение Алтайского краевого суда от 13 января 2016 года по делу № 33-

Decision of the Altayskiy Regional Court, 22 June 2016, No. 33-6785/2016 (Определение Алтайского краевого суда от 22 июня 2016 года по делу № 33-6785/2016). Decision of the Judge of the Tambovskiy Oblast Court, 5 November 2009 (Определение cудьиDecision Тамбовского of the Justice районного of the Peace суда of от Judicial 5 ноября District 2009). No. 201 in St. Petersburg, 24 De- cember 2013 (Постановление мирового судьи судебного участка № 201 Санкт- Петербурга от 24 декабря 2013 года). Decision of the Kostroma Oblast Court, 20 March 2013, No. 33-284/2013 (Определение Костромского областного суда от 20 марта 2013 года, по делу № 33-284/2013). Decision of the Kostroma Oblast Court, 6 July 2012, No. 2-5/2012 (Определение Костромского областного суда от 6 июля 2012 года по делу № 2-5/2012). 163 164 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST № 2-326/14). делу по года 2014 мая 16 от Хабаровска суда районного Центрального (Решение Judgment oftheCentralDistrict Court of Khabarovsk, 16May 2014, No. 2-326/14 № 12-145/14). (Решение Центрального районного суда Хабаровска от 7 апреля 2014 года по делу Centralof the Judgment DistrictCourt ofKhabarovsk 12-145/14 2014, case no. of 7April по делу№2-5816/15). года 2016 апреля 13 Барнаулаотсудагорода районного Центрального (Решение Judgment oftheCentral7 AugustDistrict CourtofBarnaul, 2015, No. 2-5816/15 2-644/16). суда районного Центрального городаБарнаула № делу года2016 по апреля от13 Judgment of the Central District Court of Barnaul, 13 April 2016, No. 2-644/16 (Решение (Определение 3-0025 АрхангельскогоNo. суда областного от 22мая2012года поделу№3-0025)). 2012, May 22 Court, Oblast Arkhangelsk the of Judgment 2-2415/2010). № делу по года 2010 июля 20 от судаМосквы Гагаринскогорайонного (Решение Judgment ofGagarinsky District CourtofMoscow, 20July 2010, No. 2-2415/2010 (Решение 2007 November 21 City, Ryazan мирового судьи города Рязаниот the 21ноября2007года). of peace the of justice a of Judgment Тюменского суда облатного от 20апреля2011года поделу№33-1981/2011). (Определение 33-1981/2011 No. 2011, April 20 Court, Tyumen Oblast the of Decision делу №1-461/2010). по года 2010, августа 26 (Определение от Читы суда районного Центрального (Постановление 2008 November 13 Decision of theTsentralnyi DistrictCourtofChita,26August2010, No. 1-461/2010 Court, Oblast Tambovskiy Тамбовского суда районного от the 13ноября 2008). of Decision делу №001/14-5). по года 2014 Октября 16 от суда уставного Санкт-Петербургского (Определение PetersburgDecision of theSt. 16October Statutory 2014, No. 001/14-5 Court, делу №33-12999/2014). городскогоСанкт-Петербургского (Определение суда октябрягодаот14 2014, по Petersburg Decision St. of the 14 October 2014,Caseno.33-12999/2014 City Court, делу №33-12546/2015). по года 2015 октября 1 от суда городского Санкт-Петербургского (Определение PetersburgDecision of the St. 1 October 2015, No. 33-12546/2015 City Court, по делу№1-62/2013). года 2013, февраля 6 от Москвы суда районного Останкинского (Постановление Decision of the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow, 6February 2013, No. 1-62/2013 Липецкого суда областного от 7октября 2013года поделу№33-2656/2013). Decision of the Lipetsk Oblast Court, 7 October 2013, No. 33-2656/2013 (Определение Ленинского суда районного Тамбова от 2июля2008года).(Постановление 2008 October Tambov,2 of Court District Leninskiy the of Decision 2-1529/2011). № делу по года 2011 марта 1 отсуда Тюмени районного Центрального (Решение Judgment ofthe CentralDistrict Court ofTyument, 1March 2011, No. 2-1529/2011 justice or complicity?

Judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, 17 October 2014 (Решение ДорогомиловскогоJudgment of the Dzerzhinskiy районного судаDistict города Court Москвы of St. Petersburg,от 17 октября 18 2014December года). 2013

(Постановление Дзержинского районного суда Санк.-Петербурга от 18 декабря 2013Judgment года). of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil, 2 June 2011, No. 2-604/2011

(Решение Дзержинского районного суда города Нижний Тагил от 2 июня 2011 bibliography годаJudgment по делу of the№ 2-604/2011).Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizniy Tagil, 25 March 2015, No. 12-

44/2015 (Решение Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила от 25 мартаJudgment 2015 of года the поDzerzhinskiy делу № 12-44/2015). District Court of Nizniy Tagil, 28 February 2014, No.

5-18/2014 (Постановление Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила отJudgment 28 февраля of the 2014 Dzerzhinskiy года по делу District № 5-18/2014).Court of Nizniy Tagil, 30 November 2015, No. 12-

215/2015 (Решение Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила от 30 ноябряJudgment 2015 of theгода Frunzenskiy по делу № 12-215/2015).District Court of Vladivostok of 16 March 2015, No.

5-25/2015 (Решение Фрунзенского районного суда Владивостока от 16 Марта 2015Judgment года of по the делу Frunzensky № 5-25/2015). District Court of St. Petersburg,10 August 2005, No. 1066/05

(Решение Фрунзенского районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от 10 августа 2005 года поJudgment делу 1066/05). of the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow, 30 May 2014, No. 2-2754/14 2-2754/14). (Решение Головинского районного суда Москвы от 30 мая 2014 года по делу № Judgment of the Gryazinskiy City Court of the Lipetsk Oblast, 12 August 2013, No.

2-1011/2013 (Решение Грязинского городского суда Липецкой области от 12 августа 2013Judgment года ofпо the делу Justice № 2-1011/2013). of the Peace of Circuit No. 208 of St Petersburg, 5 May 2012, No.

5-444/2012-208 (Постановление мирового судьи участка № 208 Санкт-Петербурга отJudgment 5 мая 2012 of the года, Justice по делу of the № 5-444/2012-208).Peace of District No. 8 of Kostroma, 23 March 2012,

(ПостановлениеJudgment of the Justice мирового of the судьи peace участка of judicial № 8 district Костромы no. 26 от of23 the марта Central 2012 District года). of

Khabarovsk, 30 January 2014 (Постановление мирового судьи судебного участка № 26Judgment Центрального of the Justice района of Хабаровскаthe Peace of от Judicial 30 января District 2014 no. года). 3 of the Sovetskiy Judicial

District of Kazan, 19 December 2013 (Постановление мирового судьи судебного участкаJudgment N of 3 theСоветского Justice of судебногоthe peace of района judicial города district Казани no. 412 отof the19 декабряOdintsovskiy 2013 District года).

5-69/14).of Moscow, 24 March 2014, No. 5-69/14 (Постановление мирового судьи судебного 165 участка № 412 Одинцовского района Москвы от 24 марта 2014 года по делу № 166 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Judgment of the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod, 2011, No. 2-9631/11 линского суда районного Москвыот 10июня 2005года). Нику- (Решение 2005, June Moscow,10 of Court District Nikulinskiy the of Judgment по года, 2015 делу №2-2757/2015). мая 26 от, Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Невского (Решение Judgment oftheNevskiy Petersburg, District Court ofSt. 26 May 2015, No. 2-2757/2015 года поделу2-11405/2015). суда2015 (Решение районного ноября Нагатинского2-11405/2015 от 27 Москвы Judgment of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, 27 November 2015, No. 24 января2013года поделу№2-424/2013). (Решение суда(Решение районного Ломоносовского2-424/2013 городаАрхангельска отот 2012, May 2 Judgment of the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk,24 January2013, No. Kostroma, of Court District Ленинского суда районного Leninskiy Костромы от 2мая2012года). the of Judgment 2-1617/2014). (Решениеt of the Kirovskiy District Court of St. Peters 29 апреля 2014, года по делу № Judgment oftheKirovskiy Petersburg, District Court of St. 29 April 2014, No. 2-1617/2014 делу №2-2341/2015). по года2015 июня 26 судаот районного Санкт-Петербурга Кировского(Решение Judgment oftheKirovskiy Petersburg, District CourtofSt. 26 June2015, No. 2-2341/2015 по делу№2-1890/2015). года 2015 апреля 21 от Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Кировского (Решение Judgment oftheKirovskiy Petersburg, District Court of St. 21 April 2015, No. 2-1890/2015 мая 2013годаподелу№2-4078/2013 2-4078/2013 ( Judgment oftheKhimnkinskiy 22 May District Court oftheMoscow Oblast, 2013, No. 30 ноября2012годаподелу№2-5868/2012) No. 2-5868/2012 Judgment oftheKhimnkinskiy 30November DistrictCourtoftheMoscowOblast, 2012, августа 2015года поделу№5-549/2015). судебного участка № 2 Дзержинского районного суда города Нижнего Тагила от 3 судьиNizniyмирового Tagil,of (Постановление trict 5-549/2015 No. 2015, August3 2 oftheDzerzhinskiydistrict no. Judgment oftheJusticepeacejudicial Dis Нижнего города суда районного Дзержинского Тагила от 2015года 3февраля поделу№5-7/2015). 5 № участка судебного судьи District of Nizniy Tagil of 3 August 2015, case no. 5-7/2015 (Постановление мирового Judgment of the Justice of the peaceof the judicialdistrict no. 5 of the Dzerzhinskiy № 18Октябрьского Рязаниот района 6апреля2009года). District of Ryazan, 6 April 2009 (Постановление мирового судьия судебного участка Judgment of the Justice of the Peace of the JudicialDistrict No. 18 of the Oktyabrskiy судебного города района Архангельска от 3декабря2013года). Октябрьского 5 № участка судебного судьи мирового (Постановление 2013 ber Judgment oftheJusticePeace ofJudicialDistrictNo.5Arkhangelsk,3 Decem дело №2-9631/11). года, 2011 Новгорода судаНижнего городаНижегородского районного (Решение Решение Химкинского городского суда Московской области от 22 от области Московской суда городского Химкинского Решение (Решение Химкинского городского суда Московской области от области Московской суда городского Химкинского (Решение ). . - - justice or complicity?

Judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, 17 January 2012 (Решение ОктябрьскогоJudgment of the районного Oktyabrskiy суда District Архангельска Court of отArkhangelsk, 17 января 201222 September года). 2010, No.

2-3629/2010 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда Архангельска от 22 сентября 2010 года по делу № 2-3629/2010). Judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, 4 April 2012 (Решение ОктябрьскогоJudgment of the районного Oktyabrskiy суда District Архангельска Court of отRyazan, 4 апреля 14 May 2012 2009, года). No. 12-46/2009 bibliography 12-46/2009). (Решение Октябрьского районного суда Рязани от 14 мая 2009 года по делу, № Judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, 25 March 2015, No.

2-1551/2015 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от 25 мартаJudgment 2015 of года the поOktyabrsky делу № 2-1551/2015). District Court of Arkhangels, 23 January 2014, No.

2-1045/2014 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда города Архангельска от 23 январяJudgment 2014 of годаthe Oktyabrskyпо делу № 2-1045/2014).District Court of Arkhangelsk, 27 January 2012, No.

2-938/2012 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда города Архангельска от 27 январяJudgment 2012 of годаthe Oktyabrskyпо делу № 2-938/2012).District Court of Arkhangelsk, 30 January 2014, No.

2-1496/2014 (Решение Октябрьского районного суда города Архангельска от 30 январяJudgment 2014 of годаthe Pervomaiskiy по делу № 2-1496/2014). District Court of Krasnodar, 20 February 2012, No.

2-1161/2012 (Решение Первомайского районного суда Краснодара от 20 февраля 2012 года по делу № 2-1161/2012). Judgment of the Primorskiy Krai Court, 30 April 2015, No. 7-12-168 (Решение ПриморскогоJudgment of the краевого Rudnichnyi суда Districtот 30 апреля Court 2015of Prokopievsk года по делу of the№ 7-12-168).Kemerovo Oblast, 4

December 2013, No. 2-2490/2013 (Решение Рудничного районного суда города Прокопьевска Кемеровской области от 4 декабря 2013 года, дело № 2-2490/2013). Judgment of the Ryazan Oblast Court, 26 September 2013, No. 4A-144/2013 (Решение РязанскогоJudgment of областногоthe Sestroretskiy суда от District 26 сентября Court of2013 St. года,Petersburg, по делу 18 № May 4A-144/2013). 2016, No. 2a-

925/2016 (Решение Сестрорецого районного суда Санкт-Петербурга от 18 мая 2016Judgment года of по the делу Sovetskiy № 2a-925/2016). District Court of Astrakhan, 4 March 2015, No. 2-1001/2015 2-1001/2015). (Решение Советского районного суда Астрахани от 4 марта 2015 года по делу №

Judgment of the St. Petersburg City Court, 24 May 2012, No. 3-97/12 (Решение Санкт- ПетербургскогоJudgment of the State городского Commercial суда Courtот 24 ofмая the 2012 St. Peterbusrg года, по делу and №the 3-97/12). Leningrad Oblast,

167 48129/2014).9 February 2015, No. А56-48129/2014 (Решение Арбитражного суда города Санкт- Петербурга и Ленинградской области от 9 февраля 2015 года по делу № А56- 168 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 2011, 1 BvR 3295/07 (German only), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entsc areOrder unconstitutional, of January 11,2011”Press release no.7/2011, January 28, tory recognition oftranssexualsaccording to §8.1nos.3and4oftheTranssexualsAct FederalCourt Constitutional (Bundesverfassungsgericht), “Prerequisites for the statu National Jurisprudence (Non-Russian) 14 от осктября 2015года, области поделу№1-16/2015). Свердловской суда районного Синарского (Приговор 1-16/2015 Verdict oftheSinarskiy DistrictCourtoftheSverdlovsk14 October 2015, No. Oblast, ноября 2013года, поделу№1-354/2013). 11 от, Санкт-Петербурга суда районного Петроградского (Приговор 1-354/2013 Verdict of the Petrogradskiy Petersburg, District Court of St. 11 November 2013, No. № 6Октябрьского округа города Архангельска от 2012года). 3февраля участка судебногосудьи мирового (Постановление 2012 February 3 Arkhangelsk, Verdict of the Justice of the Peace of Judicial District No. 6 of the Oktyabrskiy District of 1-41-14-1610). 01- года№ 2014 ноября 18 отправонарушении административном (Протоколоб Record ofadministrative proceedings of 18November 2014 no. 01-1-41-14-1610 29 июля2016года поделу№2-3186/2016). от Новосибирска суда районного Железнодорожного (Решение 2-3186/2016 no. Judgment oftheZheleznodorozhnyi District Court of Novosibirsk, 29 July 2016, case 26 от Екатеринбурга июля 2012года поделу№2-2973/2012). суда районного Верх-Иссетского (Решение 2-2973/2012 Judgment oftheVerkh-Issetskiy District Court ofYekaterinburg, 26 July 2012, No. Василеостровского суда районного от Санкт-Петербурга 8июня2012года). Judgment of the Vasilieostrovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, 8 June 2012 (Решение 2-1002/14). № делу по года 2014 января 22 от Москвы суда районного Тверского (Решение (Решение Judgment of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 2014 22 January 2014, No. 2-1002/14 March 17 Moscow, of Court Тушинского суда районного District Москвыот 17марта 2014года). Tushinskiy the of Judgment декабря 4 от2012 года поделу№2-1880/2012). Костромы суда районного Свердловского (Решение 2-1880/2012 of theSverdlovskiyJudgment DistrictCourtofKostroma,4 December 2012, No. № 2-2904/2014). делу по года 2014 июля 3 от Костромысуда районного Свердловского (Решение Judgment of the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma, 3July 2014, No. 2-2904/2014 2014 года поделу№2-4309/2014). октября 27 от Костромы суда областного Свердловского (Решение 2-4309/2014 Judgment oftheSverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma, 27 October 2014, No. № 2-2529/2014). (Решение Свердловского областного суда Костромы от 11 июня 2014 года по делу of theSverdlovskiyJudgment DistrictCourtofKostroma,11 June2014, No. 2-2529/2014 heidungen/rs20110111_1bvr329507.html. - - Austrian Administrative High Court, Verwaltungsgerichtsh of no. 2008/17/0054, judg- justice or complicity? - ment of February 27, 2009, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vw gh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2008170054_20090227X00. Books, Articles, Reports and Studies

Article 19, ‘Hate Speech’ Explained: A Toolkit, 2016. bibliography Article 19, Responding to Hate Speech against LGBTI People, October 2013. Batsvin, N., “Analysis of Case Law of Work-Related Discrimination”, Trudovoe Pravo, Vol. 4, Анализ судебной практики по делам, связанным с дискриминацией на работе). 2013 (Бацвин Н.

Charter of the Movement for Marriage Equality (Устав Автономной некоммерческой организации правовых и социальных услуг «Движения за брачное равноправие»). Charter of the Pride House Sochi (Устав Краснодарского краевого регионального Coming Out, спортивногоReport общественного on Monitoring движения Cases of «Прайд Discrimination хаус в Сочи»). and Violence based on Sexu- al Orientation and Gender Identity in St. Petersburg in 2014, 2014, available at: http:// comingoutspb.com/publikatsii/prava-cheloveka/ (Доклад по мониторингу случаев дискриминации и насилия по признакам сексуальной ориентации и гендерной Danilenko, G.M., “Implementation of International Law in CIS States: Theory and Prac- идентичности в Санкт-Петербурге за 2014 год). tice”, European Journal of International Law, 10, 1994. Danilenko, G.M., “The New Russian Constitution and International Law” American Jour- nal of International Law, 88, 1994. First National Conference of Russian Doctors, The Code of Professional Ethics of Doctor of the Russian Federation

, 5 October 2012 (“Кодекс профессиональной этики врача Gessen, M., РоссийскойThe Федерации”). rights of lesbians and gay men in the Russian Federation: An International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission report, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, 1994. Gross, S., Intersex, Intersex South Africa, available at: http://www.intersex.org.za/images/training_materials/Intersex_Booklet_HIVOS-DSD.pdf. Healey, D. Russia: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Cul- ture, available at http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/russia_S.pdf. Human Rights Watch, License to Harm. Violence and Harassment against LGBT People and Activists in Russia, 2014. Kirichenko, K., “Change of Legal Gender of Citizens in Russian Judicial Practice”, Med- ical Law,

Vol. 3, 2012 (Кириченко К.А. Изменение гражданского пола граждан в Kochatyan, G.S., “Normalisation of Homosexualism as Medical and Social Problem”, российской правоприменительной практике // Медицинское право. 2012. N 3.).In- dependent Psychiatric Journal, Vol. 4, 2006, available at http://npar.ru/journal/2006/4/

169 homosexuality.htm (Г.С. Кочарян Нормализация гомосексуализма как медико- социальная проблема). 170 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST ident oftheRussian Federation”, Volkov,LyutyaginaA.M., rolethe “On E.A, Administrationthe of place the and Pres ofthe www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx. ed by theAPA Councilof Representatives, 18-20 February 2011, availablehttp:// at The Guidelines for Psychological Practice withLesbian,Gay, andBisexualClients, adopt Большая СоветскаяЭнциклопедия,1930 Sereisky, M., декабря 2012года) (Российскоепсихологическое кодексЭтический общество, психологов, 14 принят Russian Psychological Society, Russian LGBT Network, гендерной идентичности в2014,году). и ориентации сексуальной признаку по дискриминации и человека on sexual2014 in orientationand gender identity Russian LGBT Network, sia in2015 Russian LGBT Network, org/en/reptseng. tation committed in Russian Federation in2014 Russian LGBT Network, rkn.gov.ru/docs/JEkspertiza_Deti_404.pdf. сексуальных нетрадиционных пропаганды года) 2014 декабря 6 от несовершеннолетних, среди отношений признаков нем в наличия предмет на материалов т видеоролика в сообществе «Дети 404» социальной сети «ВКонтакте» realtionships amongminors, 404” with regard characteristics to identifying ofpropaganda ofnon-traditional sexual Reporttheof //Журналрации российского 2015.№ 11). права. Феде- Российской субъекта законодательством человека прав конституционных sian Federation Nikitina, E., versity Press, 2014. V.A.,Musin, Kropachev N.M Методические рекомендации”). населения. групп различных среди ВИЧ-инфекции профилактики (“Организация Differentamong Population Groups.Practical Guidelines and SocialDevelopment,Ministry ofHealth Rights Campaign,2009. and Libman,A.J., M.A. Marzullo, tion P.B.,Maggs, Schwartz, O.,W.,Burnham, and любви Kon, I.S., Федерации // Административноеправо ипроцесс.-М.:Юрист,201 2, №3.). А.М., Лютягина Е.А. К , Juris,2015. , 2003). FacesSame-Sex andMasksof Love , 2015. Limitation ofConstitutional HumanRights inLegislationsofSubjects ofthe Rus

expertassessment textof materials in thevideo a and “Children- community Great Soviet Encyclopedia , Zhurnal rossijskogoZhurnal , prava. V.2015. Ограничения Е.Е. (Никитина 11 I. 3, . вопросу о роли и месте Администрации Президента Российской Hate crimes motivated by orsexual victim’sgender identity orien Results ofQuantitative Research Monitoringand ViolenceDiscrimination of RusIn BasedOnSogi Monitoringviolations anddiscriminationbased of humanrights ., Russian., Digest LawinBrief: for Investors 6 December2014 Hate Crimes andViolence Against LGBT People Administrative Law andProcedure The Ethics Code ofPsychologists , 1930 ( ). Law and LegalLaw and Systemtheof Russian Federa , 2003 (Кон И.С. (Кон 2003 , Organisation ofPrevention ofHIVInfection (Заключение экспертизы текстовых текстовых экспертизы (Заключение , 2014, availablehttp://www.lgbtnet.at , 2014 (Мониторинг нарушений прав ееси МА Гмскулз // Гомосексуализм М.А. Серейский , 20 December 2006, , No. 6834-PX , December2015. Лики и маски однополой маски и Лики , Vol. 3, 2012 (Волков (Волков 2012 Vol.3, , , 14 February 2012 , available athttps:// , St. Petersburg, St. Uni , Human ------Weber, A., Manual on Hate Speech, Council of Europe, 2009. justice or complicity? Zimmerman, W., Ruling Russia: Authoritarianism from the Revolution to Putin, Princeton University Press, 2014. Zorkin, V.D., “Challenges of Implementation of the Convention on Human Rights”, 2012, available at: http://www.ksrf.ru/en/News/Documents/Report%20for%2022%20Oc- tober.docx (Чернышев И.А. Правовые позиции Конституционного Суда России и ЕвропейскогоZuikov, A.V. “Administration Суда по правам of the человека: President генезис of the и Russian взаимовлияние). Federation: Yesterday, To- bibliography day and Tomorrow”, Constitutional and Municipal Law

, Vol. 8, 2009, (Зуйков А.В. Администрация Президента Российской Федерации: вчера, сегодня, завтра // Конституционное и муниципальное право. – М.: Юрист, 2009, № 8.). News Items And Other Media Sources

“A Story with Gayography” (История с гейографией), On-Line Magazine “Molodoy Dal nevostochnik” (Молодой Дальневосточник), 20 September 2013, available at http:// www.mdgazet.ru/?module=articles&action=view&id=299. “Business breakfast” with Ella Pamfilova, High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation (“Деловой завтрак” с Эллой Памфиловой). Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 20 October“Deputy 2014,Mizulina available Suggested at https://rg.ru/2014/10/20/pamfilova-dz.html. Removing Children from Russian Gays and Lesbians” GayRussia, 14 June 2013, available at http://www.gayrussia.eu/russia/6814. (Депутат Мизулина предложила отбирать детей у российских геев и лесбиянок), - rides/moscow. “Moscow Gay Pride” (Московский гей-прайд), available at: www.gayrussia.eu/gayp -

Spiegel,“Russia Analysis21 September of Foreign 2014, Office: available ‘An authoritarian at: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/russ state in almost every respect’” (“Russ- land-unter-putin-auswaertiges-amt-spricht-von-autoritaerem-staat-a-992768.html.land-Analyse des Auswärtiges Amtes: ‘Ein fast in jeder Hinsicht autoritärer Staat’”) Der

2015, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/russia-begins-blacklisting-undesirable-organizations.Amnesty International, “Russia begins blacklisting ‘undesirable’ organizations”, 28 July Children-404, originally available at: http://vk.com/deti404_vk. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Overview of the applications, available at http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Petition/Pages/Statistic.aspx (Обзор поступающих обращений в Конституционный Суд Российской Федерации). GayRussia, “Mayor of Arkhangelsk banned gay pickets near children’s institutions, Arkhangelsk court began to consider complaints about the ban of gay events”, 15 Decem- ber 2011 (Мэрия Архангельска запретила гей-пикеты около детских учреждений, архангельский суд приступил к рассмотрению жалоб на запрет ранее заявленных гей-мероприятий), available at http://www.gayrussia.eu/russia/3269/. The Guardian, 12 November 2015, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/ the-transgender-woman-who-may-never-see-her-son-again.Gevisser, M., “The transgender woman fighting for the right to see her son. 171 172 EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST 31 December31 2014 The FederalAIDS Centre, glossary-terms. Stonewall,“Glossary of Terms”, availableat: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/ они есть!), available athttps://openrussia.org/post/view/4243. а знает, не них о Никто РФ. субъектов суды (уставные) (Конституционные sian Federation: noonknowstheythem, but about exist!” (statutory)Sobol, L.,“Constitutional courts of the constituententitiesof the Rus ЛГБТ-активистов, прав взащиту впервые выступил 18марта 2011года) LGBT-activists rights”, 18 March 2011 Russian LGBT Network Rosstat, available at:www.gks.ru. vember 2010. transsexualand her six-year-old sonwas inthechild’sbestinterests”, No.910, 30 No Registrar“Press oftheCourt, Release: Restrictionarrangements ofcontact between a (мненияпарламентариев)). перед Страсбургом 2010, available at: http://regions.ru/news/2323218/ (Москва не должна прогибаться Regions.ru, “Moscowcaveshould not into Strasbourg(Opinions ofMPs)”, 10November are. Pride inLondon,“Whowe are”, available at:http://prideinlondon.org/about-us/who-we- прокомментировала Апреля 2015года). Памфилова фола». 15 Знак, грани // ЛГБТ-подросткам «Дети-404» помощи проекта блокировкой на с ситуацию все «Там М. (Плюснина 04-15/ support ofLGBT-teenagers”, for project the of down shut the with situation the on comments “Pamfilova M., Plyusnina, International, Intersex Organization – “What isintersex?” available at:http://oiiinternational.com/2533/welcome. Intersexués des Internationale Organisation html?_r=0. world/europe/russias-new-human-rights-ombudsman-is-former-police-general. The New York Times, Nechepurenko,“Russia’s I., Human Rights New IsFormer Ombudsman Police General”, MY LGBT PLUS, “Why the Plus?”, available at: http://www.mylgbtplus.org/why-the-plus. Petersburg.District no.10,St. Interview conducted by Dmitri Bartenev withMsVorokushina, 20 May 2016, Municipal ru/2013/11/06/163. Interview with MrMilonov, 11 June 2013, availableat: http://www.fontanka. org/faq/what_is_intersex. http://www.isna. at: intersex?”,available is “What America, North of Society Intersex publications/glossary. ILGA-Europe, “ILGA-Europe Glossary”, availablehttp://old.ilgaeurope.org/home/at: glaad.org/reference/offensive. http://www. at: Avoid”,available to Terms – Guide Reference Media “GLAAD GLAAD, на 31декабря 2014г.). Федерации Россиискои в СправкаВИЧ-инфекция СПИД. центр (Федеральный pdf, , 2014, available at: http://www.hivrussia.org/files/spravkaHIV2014. 22 April 2016, availableat: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/ , “ Information notice: HIV-infectionin the Russian Federation as of Russian Ombudsman made his first appearance in defense of defense in appearance first his made Ombudsman Russian Znak , 15April2015,available at:https://www.znak.com/2015-

(Российская ЛГБТ-Сеть.(Российская омбудсманРоссиский Open Russia , 15 April 2015 . - - The Principles of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted in 2000 by justice or complicity? the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, available at http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/141422.html (“Основы социальной конепции Русской Православной Церкви”, приняты Освященным Архиерейским Собором Русской Православной Церкви).The State Duma of the Russian Federation, “Automated system for legislative activities”,

available at: http://asozd.duma.gov.ru (Государственная Дума Российской Федерации. bibliography АвтоматизированнаяTincq, H., “Cyril, the religious система arm обеспечения of the nationalism законодательной of Putin” State.fr деятельности)., 8 December 2014, available at http://www.slate.fr/story/95027/cyrille-patriarche-poutine (“Cyrille, le bras religieux du nationalisme de Poutine”). 10 March 2002, availa-

Tolts, V. “Red on the ‘Blue’. Soviet Power against Homosexuals”, ble at http://www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/24204207.html (Владимир Тольц. “Красным” по “голубому”. - Советская власть против гомосексуалистов). - burg”, 21 November 2010 ( TopNews Agency, “The first LGBT assembly was permitted in Russia in 2010 in St. Petershttp:// www.topnews.ru/news_id_39182.html.В Санкт-Петербурге прошел первый санкционированный властями пикет представителей сексуальных меньшинств), available at: Zakharova, S., “Court’s decision on transgender woman’s parental rights”, Human Rights Cam- era, 17 August 2016, available at https://mrkamera.org/2016/08/17/svetlana-zakharova-courts-decision-on-transgender-womans-parental-rights.

173 The Equal Rights Trust is an independent international organisation whose purpose is to combat discrimination and promote equality as a fundamental human right and a basic principle of social justice.

“Great people were gay too. Gays can also become great. Homosexuality is normal.” In May 2012, a court in Arkhangelsk, Russia, convicted activists holding a banner with these words of breaking a newly-enacted regional law prohibiting the “propaganda of homosexuality”. Later that year, the Supreme Court of Rus- sia, while quoting the European Court of Human Rights’ criticism of such laws, nevertheless upheld the decision, concluding that the Arkhangelsk law did not violate the right to freedom of expression.

This is just one of the many cases highlighted in this report where the Russian courts have sanctioned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, in the face of established international law.

This report assesses how the courts in Russia have responded in cases involving LGBT individuals, ranging from prosecution of hate crime to limitation of freedom of expression, from protection of family rights to prohibition of discrimination at work. An analysis of two decades of jurisprudence, the report finds that judicial practice is marred with inconsistencies. While there has been some positive judicial practice, the courts have repeatedly sanctioned discriminatory laws and practices. Judicial reasoning is frequently deeply flawed, and often based on homophobic and transphobic stereotypes.

The report presents stark conclusions, forcing those both in Russia and elsewhere to ask whether the Russian courts have become complicit in discrimination against LGBT persons.

This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the Equal Rights Trust and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.