5

According to an Amnesty press release from April:

On 8 April, the Russian Ministry of Justice delisted Amnesty International’s Moscow Office from the register of the representative offices of the international organizations and foreign NGOs, effectively closing it down alongside with offices of Human Rights Watch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and other organizations. This decision has been taken “in connection with the discovered violations of the Russian legislation.”

On 11 March, Russia’s media regulator also blocked access to Amnesty International’s Russian-language website.

Has Russian authorities further detailed what "violations of the Russian legislation" that is about?

0

1 Answer 1

2

Courts in Russia are required by law to publish their decisions online. In case of Amnesty International, the decision of the Russian Ministry of Justice to unregister them was appealed (in the first instance only) and the court decision can be found [here]. According to it, Amnesty International failed to provide required by law documentation to the Ministry. Amnesty International have not appealed the decision in the next higher court.

Which is funny because in the mentioned press release they state: "The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by closing down our office in Moscow they will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations. We continue undeterred to work to ensure that people in Russia are able to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. We will redouble our efforts to expose Russia’s egregious human rights violations both at home and abroad. We will never stop fighting..."

This happened to be not true.

Apparently foreign NGOs in Russia were required to inform Ministry of Justice about their upcoming projects since 2006. For some reasons these NGOs couldn't arrange to do this. Instead they decided to abandon their case in court and allow for their liquidation.

Sad ending and that's what happens to those who refuse to play by the rules.

4
  • 2
    I'm not sure if this answers the question as asked. While this describes the reason for the ruling during the appeal, it doesn't provide the alleged initial violation that needed to be appealed. What were they originally found in violation of? I would also recommend removing the unrelated second paragraph, as well as the opinion text at the end. Thanks!
    – Onyz
    Oct 18, 2023 at 15:01
  • The question is evolving also. Initially the NGOs stated certain mission or purpose (to defend HR) during their registration, that later that pupose changed and they decided not to defend HR in Russia. Apparently they decided to boycott Russia. Since they stopped reporting on their projects, they were automatically unregistered. They didn't contest.
    – troyan
    Oct 18, 2023 at 15:45
  • @troya So it's essentially a procedural issue -- they didn't file the proper paperwork regarding their activities? But the NGOs may have worried that if they filed truthful plans they would be rejected.
    – Barmar
    Oct 18, 2023 at 23:37
  • @Barmar they could be rejected by their sponsors, people who worry about human rights. That's why they issued the statement
    – troyan
    Oct 19, 2023 at 5:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .