The Committee on security and combating corruption recommended the state Duma on may 18 to accept the first reading of the “anti-terrorist” package of two bills. Shortcomings in these initiatives, the Committee found, in contrast to the members of the Council on human rights under the President.
photo: Natalia Gubernatorova
“MK” wrote earlier about the bills prepared in the bowels of law enforcement bodies and the Security Council of the Russian Federation and a month ago the state Duma over the signatures of the Deputy Irina Spring (“United Russia”) and Senator Viktor Ozerov. The documents propose more or less radical rewrite of article 23 of the criminal code and supplementing it with three new compositions (“failure to report a crime”, “Promoting extremist activity” and “international terrorism”).
At the same time correct the code of criminal procedure articles 7 and 10 of the existing laws (“On citizenship of the Russian Federation”, “On communication”, “On procedure of exit from Russia and entry to Russia”, the Code of administrative offences, etc.).
The discussion which caused a mixed reaction society initiatives at the meeting of the relevant security Committee on may 10 was very brief. Draft conclusions on the draft laws the Committee members had received immediately prior to the event and barely have time to read them.
If the first draft bill (on amendments to the criminal code and the criminal procedure code) first Deputy head of Committee Ernest Valeyev all have the same report, with respect to the second, where we are talking about changes in those same 10 laws, was limited to a brief message about what it is also recommended to adopt in the first reading.
From the findings, unanimously approved by the members of the Committee: bills vital, and incredibly good revision is not needed. That the second reading should be something to discuss further, they say only once, where we are talking about the proposal to oblige operators to store on the territory of Russia within 3 years and to provide on request of law enforcement authorities information about the contents of all transmitted network messages of any kind (now the duty extends only to information about the facts of sending messages).
Now, for the second reading “settings and the volume of data storage” can be “refined”.
Not a single question has caused members of the Committee on the safety of this controversial innovation, as a ban on travel outside the Russian Federation for certain categories of Russians. Ms. Spring and Mr. Ozerov not propose to produce within 5 years those who “declared an official warning about the inadmissibility of actions creating conditions for committing the” 13 species “terrorist” crimes. And even those who have not taken off or outstanding conviction for terrorism-related heinous crimes under four articles of the criminal code, and for any “crimes of the extremist direction” (without specifying which crimes, that is, any)…
Committee members remind in conclusion that now “check-out can be restricted for persons convicted of committing crimes, including the small weight, until they have served (fulfilled) their sentence”. (Note that the extension of the ban to overturned means from 1 to 10 years later.)
This is followed by reference to the decision of the constitutional court, which in 2009 ruled this provision of the law “On procedure of departure…” constitutional, and the Universal Declaration of human rights, which speaks about the permissibility of restrictions on rights and freedoms of the person, if it is “necessary in the interests of ensuring public order and prevent crime, ensure the General welfare in a democratic society”. Besides, the Constitution only guarantees the right “freely to travel” outside the country and to freely return”, that is, the right to travel freely to the Russians and no one promised…
It should be noted that the presidential Council for civil society development and human rights in its expert report proposes to abandon the introduction of new restrictions on travel. “It seems logical, on the contrary, help to ensure that persons, whose activity is undesirable, remained beyond the borders of our country, and not on its territory. Of course, we cannot talk about the deprivation of citizenship, nor about forcing a citizen to leave their Homeland,” according to human rights activists.
HRC draws attention to “lack of legal certainty” design standards, with the result that she “may become invalid non-legal means of dealing with unwanted people in reality pose no public danger”, especially that of extremist crimes in most cases are not serious…