The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found the criminal prosecution and sentence of members of the Russian protest band, Pussy Riot, in breach of their freedom of expression.
The case related to the conviction and imprisonment of band members for attempting to perform one of their protest songs in a Moscow Cathedral in 2012. The performance was in response to the ongoing political process in Russia, and included uploading of footage to their website and YouTube. No religious services were taking place at the time of performance.
The three Pussy Riot members were arrested for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” and held on pre-trial detention for over five months before being convicted as charged. The Russian court found their performance to be offensive and insulting, rejecting that were politically motivated. The band members were sentenced to one year and eleven months imprisonment, and access to the video content was banned.
The Court found violations under four articles of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), based on the conditions of their transportation and detention in the court house, their pre-trial detention, their treatment during court hearings and access to legal counsel.
In relation to freedom of expression, the ECtHR emphasised the essential nature of the exchange of ideas by those who create and perform art. The ECtHR recognised the contribution Pussy Riot made to the public debate about the political situation in Russia and the exercise of parliamentary and presidential powers. The ECtHR reiterated that restrictions on political speech or debates on questions of public interest were limited, and very strong reasons were required for justifying such restrictions.
The Court noted that the performance could have been seen to be in conflict with the accepted rules of a place of worship. Nonetheless, the Court held that the domestic court had failed to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the criminal conviction and to show that the sanctions were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Looking at the ban on access to the video, the ECtHR found that the domestic court made no effort to justify why this ban had been necessary other than endorsing the findings of a linguistic expert report. Placing a ban on these materials did not meet a pressing social need and therefore the ban was a disproportionate reaction.
The Court confirmed “that according to international standards for the protection of freedom of expression, restrictions on such freedom in the form of criminal sanctions are only acceptable in cases of incitement to hatred”.
Click here for the decision in Mariya Alekhina and Others v Russia.