Public Verdict Foundation in Moscow
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2013-031-002
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2013
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 61.52401
Longitude: 105.318756
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Russia
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- Dates of prior UN action
- 6 June 2013
- Type of record
- Named organization
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
43.As noted in my previous report, 64 several United Nations human rights experts have expressed concern at the law on non-governmental organizations which carry functions of foreign agents”, adopted in November 2012.65 Particular concern was raised by the Committee against Torture at allegations of reprisals against the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and the Public Verdict Foundation via that law. On 23 December 2013, the Committee expressed grave concern after a Russian court ordered Memorial to register as a “foreign agent”, allegedly owing to its political activities and foreign funding.66 Replies to letters by the special procedures and the Committee were received on 9 August 2013 and 19 February 2014 respectively. In them, the Government indicated that the “activities of Russian law enforcement authorities ... are carried out in strict accordance with existing legal norms and have nothing to do with ‘reprisals’”, and that Russian legislation did not establish any legislative or administrative barriers restricting activities of non-commercial organizations. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in her report of 3 March 2014,67 reiterated serious concern about the use of that law to target and intimidate human rights organizations which had engaged with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights, in particular about the acts of reprisals against the Public Verdict Foundation and the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
provided information to the Committee in December 2012 during consideration of the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation to the Committee
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- Dates of engagement
- Unclear
- Type of attempted engagement
- Submission of information to UN
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- Unclear
- Reprisal information
faced reprisals. The organizations were charged by the public prosecutor with violating legislation under which non-profit organizations involved in political activity must register as “foreign agents” if they receive money from abroad
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Administrative reprisal
- Profession-related reprisal
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Yes
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 1
- In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
- 2014
- Follow up information provided in SG report 0
43.As noted in my previous report, 64 several United Nations human rights experts have expressed concern at the law on non-governmental organizations which carry functions of foreign agents”, adopted in November 2012.65 Particular concern was raised by the Committee against Torture at allegations of reprisals against the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and the Public Verdict Foundation via that law. On 23 December 2013, the Committee expressed grave concern after a Russian court ordered Memorial to register as a “foreign agent”, allegedly owing to its political activities and foreign funding.66 Replies to letters by the special procedures and the Committee were received on 9 August 2013 and 19 February 2014 respectively. In them, the Government indicated that the “activities of Russian law enforcement authorities ... are carried out in strict accordance with existing legal norms and have nothing to do with ‘reprisals’”, and that Russian legislation did not establish any legislative or administrative barriers restricting activities of non-commercial organizations. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in her report of 3 March 2014,67 reiterated serious concern about the use of that law to target and intimidate human rights organizations which had engaged with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights, in particular about the acts of reprisals against the Public Verdict Foundation and the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial
- Followup Trends 0
- Stayed same
- Did the government respond? 0
- Yes
- Was this case followed up by a UN body? 0
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic