Kriger Mikhail Aleksandrovich

Full description

Mikhail Kriger has been an active participant in the democratic and human rights movement since the late 1980s. Member of the Solidarity movement since its inception, member of the Moscow Region Memorial. Regularly participated in campaigns to support political prisoners. Since the 2000s, he has been repeatedly subjected to administrative persecution for participating in actions: rallies and pickets. Recently, he has consistently and publicly expressed an anti-war position. His methods of expressing and defending his views have always been exclusively peaceful.

On November 3, 2022, in the center of Moscow, near a restaurant where he was delivering groceries, several security officials in balaclavas roughly detained Mikhail, throwing him to the ground. After which his home was searched, and he was taken for questioning to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

On November 4, 2022, Senior Investigator of the Department for Particularly Important Cases of the Investigative Directorate for the South-West Administrative District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the City of Moscow A.S. Panyutishchev issued a ruling to bring him to criminal responsibility on charges of justifying terrorism. The investigation of the case was assigned to an investigative group of seven investigators for particularly important cases.

On November 6, 2022, the Cheryomushkinsky District Court of Moscow placed him under arrest for two months. Neither journalists nor Krieger’s relatives were allowed into the courtroom, despite the lawyers’ requests and the fact that the trial was not formally declared closed. The judge explained this by the fact that the case was being heard on a weekend.

On January 12, 2023, the investigation expanded the charges, adding an article on “inciting hatred or enmity” and a second episode of “justifying terrorism”.

In the first episode, the investigation accuses Krieger of a post that appeared on the “Mikhail Krieger” Facebook page in 2020. The post is dedicated to the harsh and controversial verdict in the media for a married couple from Kaliningrad accused of treason. In fact, the text in question is a commentary on a repost of a Vedomosti article about this verdict. Commenting on the verdict, the author of the post states: “We can state that in our country, the monsters from the Cheka have seized power over people. And they eat people, smacking their lips, with a crunch. They swallow people in the same way as a boa constrictor does with a rabbit. … And such a selection is happening among us, when only those who keep quiet survive, those who do not open their mouths once again. And we can already state that society has been crushed by monsters. They defeated people. They broke the back of society. Having completely suppressed the will to resist. And people are turning, have already turned, into dumb cattle, who can rejoice that today it was not they who were dragged to the slaughter, but their neighbor.”

The reason for the accusation was the final words (they are given in the indictment): “And that is why Mikhail Zhlobitsky is a hero to me. He found the strength not to wipe his face. And maybe that guy who opened fire on Lubyanka on Chekist Day a year ago. These bandits don’t understand it any other way. And trying to persuade them is as useless as trying to persuade that same boa constrictor that swallows a rabbit. And I myself didn’t follow their example only because I am weak. And there is no need to talk about mercy, non-violence, innocent victims… The monsters imposed on people not even a war, but a beating. And in war as in war.” According to the investigation, this text “according to the research report, contains a set of linguistic and psychological signs of justification of the activities of M. Zhlobitsky – destructive, violent actions (an explosion that created a danger of death) committed on October 31, 2018, … the commission of violent actions against employees of the FSB of Russia by E. Manyurov on December 19, 2019.”

For the same publication, Krieger was charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with “incitement of hatred and enmity with the threat of using violence against the social group “employees of the FSB of Russia.”

The second charge of justification of terrorism, namely – justification of “an attempt on the life (murder by hanging) of a statesman – President of Russia V.V. Putin, in order to terminate his state and / or political activities and out of revenge for such activities, that is, actions that fall under the signs of a crime provided for by Art. 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” – was brought for the following text posted on the page “Mikhail Krieger” in 2019:

“Friends, those who warn me against excessive “frankness” with different people. Thank you all very much for your concern. But I have already said enough. And I do not hide from anyone my fierce hatred for the regime, the Chekists who established it and personally for Putin V.V. And believe me, when and if I live to see the hanging of this KGB scum, I will fight with all my might for the right to participate in this uplifting event.”

On May 17, 2023, the 2nd Western District Military Court sentenced Mikhail Krieger to 7 years in a general regime penal colony.

The appellate court upheld the sentence.

Grounds for recognition as a political prisoner

We do not know whether M. Kriger is the author of the posts imputed to him, but these texts in themselves do not provide grounds for criminal prosecution, much less imprisonment.

1. Of course, approval of terrorism is a crime, and not only in Russia. In fact, this crime is a special case of incitement to violence motivated by hatred. The need to take state measures against such crimes is indicated, in particular, by the Rabat Plan of Action on incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, developed by experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, the same Rabat Plan calls for setting a high threshold for introducing restrictions on freedom of expression when determining incitement to hatred. It calls for considering Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (on the need to prohibit incitement to violence) only in proportion to Article 19 of the same document, which speaks of the right of everyone to express an opinion.

From the perspective of the Rabat Plan, the context of the statement is of utmost importance: “A contextual analysis must place the statement in the social and political context that prevailed at the time it was made or disseminated.” With regard to the content of the statement, the Rabat Plan also requires a thorough analysis of it, looking at “how direct and provocative the statement was, as well as at the form and style, the nature of the arguments put forward by the speaker, the balance of the arguments, etc.” It is also emphasized that “States have a responsibility to ensure that minorities can enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms, for example by facilitating the registration and operation of their media organizations. States should encourage communities to access and share a wide range of opinions and information, and welcome the healthy dialogue and debate that results.” The Rabat Plan also sees the potential risk of harm as equally important: “courts will have to establish that there was a real likelihood that the statement could have provoked actual action against the target group, recognizing that in this case a sufficiently direct causal link must be established.” Finally, intent plays a significant role. Negligence or recklessness are not sufficient grounds for qualifying an offence under Article 20 of the ICCPR, since this article applies to “propaganda” and “incitement” rather than to the simple dissemination or transmission of information.

2. OVD-Info reports on 47 criminal cases of “justification of terrorism” that are known to them, initiated in connection with publications about Zhlobitsky’s suicide bombing in the Arkhangelsk UFSB. This repressive campaign was used by the FSB to suppress an important public discussion about the dangerous and harmful role of this special service in modern Russia, and about the criminal methods of the state, often repeating the practices of 70-90 years ago. In particular, at least 14 sentences related to imprisonment are known.

The context of the first statement attributed to Krieger is also the unconditional and consistent infringement of civil liberties in Russia: the suppression of independent media, the de facto ban on public expression of opinion in the form of rallies, pickets, etc., increasing censorship, the adoption of laws punishing any opinion that differs from the state ideology (laws on “fakes”, etc.), the persecution or expulsion of civil and political activists and leaders of opposition movements abroad.

The condemnation of these vicious practices of the state (in particular, the loss of independence by the courts and their use by the state as a punitive machine to combat dissent) is the main content of the commentary attributed to Krieger (the reason for the statement is the court verdict). In fact, the first part of the text (about the victory of the state and special services over society), together with the described feeling of doom and hopelessness of any forms of resistance to this, is seen by the author as the reason for Zhlobitsky’s actions. And here it is difficult to say to what extent the author speaks on his own behalf or puts himself in Zhlobitsky’s place, emotionally reconstructing his motives. In any case, the text is extremely emotional and perhaps this is the reason for its harsh content (see the point of the Rabat Plan on “negligence or recklessness”).

On the other hand, being a very well-known figure in the Moscow protest movement, Mikhail Kriger has always and consistently taken a position of peaceful and legal methods of fighting for his rights. There are many videos on the Internet of Kriger’s detentions at rallies and pickets, where he does not enter into a violent conflict with the police, and if he does resist illegal detention, then only passively.

A characteristic expression of Krieger’s position is his text published in 2011 in connection with the then ongoing discussion about the admissibility of violence in protest:

“If we are guided by the logic that, supposedly, they are breaking the rules on the other side, which means that we will also break them, then the escalation of permissiveness will go beyond all bounds. And we will give the other side the moral right to treat us not according to the rules. And then very soon it will be forgotten who crossed the line first, and it will be a fight without rules, in which we will lose anyway. We will lose because the other side is still stronger, and because we will have already lost the moral right to demand that laws and rules be observed in relation to ourselves.

I would consider the ideal state to be one in which we act using the most legal methods. As far as this is possible, of course, because in the end it will be possible to change the laws so that we will not be able to open our mouths, which, in general, is gradually happening. But nevertheless, at this stage, I believe that we can act by legal and moral methods.” He voiced this position more than once. Therefore, the imputed text can also be considered as a “cry from the heart” about the fact that the state does not leave the author any opportunities for legal actions.

By “justification of terrorism” the note to Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation understands “a public statement about the recognition of the ideology and practice of terrorism as correct, in need of support and imitation.”

The first text, attributed to Krieger, does not contain calls for violence or terrorist acts; it contains the author’s reflections on the events mentioned and his analysis of the situation that became the context for the actions of Zhlobitsky and Manyurov. At the same time, the author emphasizes that he himself is not capable of using violence. The text is addressed to Mikhail’s like-minded people, who are mainly readers of his social media pages and, from his previous statements, are familiar with his commitment to peaceful means of struggle. In fact, the statement attributed to Krieger analyzes the social situation that became the reason for the actions of Zhlobitsky and, possibly, Manyurov. Not to mention the controversial classification of their actions as terrorism, the controversial post does not claim that their actions are “correct, in need of support and imitation.” In particular, the phrase “And that is why Mikhail Zhlobitsky is my hero” does not contain such a statement. Thus, the New Dictionary of the Russian Language (Efremova T. F. New Dictionary of the Russian Language. Explanatory and Word-Formation. – Moscow: Russian Language, 2000) gives the following meaning of the word “hero” that is most suitable for the current context: “one who has accomplished a feat, showing personal courage, fortitude, readiness for self-sacrifice”, and the word “feat”, in turn, “an act of great importance” or “an action performed in difficult, dangerous conditions”. The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (Ed. S. A. Kuznetsov. First edition: St. Petersburg: Norint, 1998) explains the meaning of the word “hero” as “a person who has accomplished a feat, showing personal courage, selflessness, readiness for self-sacrifice”, and the word “feat” as “a heroic, selfless act performed in dangerous conditions associated with risk”. The above dictionary definitions give every reason to believe that the statement attributed to Krieger concerns the characterization of the factual circumstances and, in connection with them, the characterization of the personality of the criminal who carried out the explosion in Arkhangelsk, but does not contain any assertions about the correctness of his actions or the need to support and imitate him.

The words “He found the strength not to wipe his face”, “these bandits do not understand it any other way”, “persuading them is as useless as persuading that very boa constrictor that swallows a rabbit”, “no need to talk about mercy, non-violence, innocent victims…”, “The monsters imposed on people not even war, but beatings. And in war as in war” – are rather elements of an analytical assessment of the events than assertions about the correctness of these actions or the need to support and imitate them.

Finally, the phrase “And I myself did not follow their example only because I am weak” is more an act of self-analysis than a statement containing elements of justification of terrorism.

As for the second imputed text – about V.V. Putin – the investigation again does not consider the context of the concept used. It does not follow from the text in any way that the proposed execution of Putin should be carried out in the form of a terrorist act. If we consider the phrase in the context of other statements and Krieger’s position, then, on the contrary, he has repeatedly discussed on social networks the possibility and desirability of a trial of Putin and the proposed charges against him. In this case, the hypothetical execution is in no way a crime under Article 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as the investigation insists), but is the execution of a court sentence issued in a legal manner.

The phrases used by Krieger, “when and if I live to see it,” “I will fight for the right,” emphasize that if this event does happen in the future, it will happen for reasons beyond his control. Of course, there is currently a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, and it is not expected to be carried out by hanging. However, it is worth noting that in Russian culture the image of the gallows has always been a symbol of the most severe punishment for sins. Thus, the expression “the rope is crying,” according to the “Large Dictionary of Russian Proverbs” (Glukhov, 1988), means that “smb. deserves severe punishment.” However, it is impossible to say that in the indefinite future (which is discussed in the text), the legislation regulating the death penalty will not change. In any case, a declaration of intent to participate in the execution of a court sentence if such a sentence is passed is not criminal. The presentation of such an accusation is not based on the law, but is actually aimed at sacralizing the image of Putin and protecting this image from “insulting his majesty.” It seems that this motive is clearly illustrated by the fact that the investigator, describing the accusation related to V. Putin, does not dare to write Putin’s last name, changing it to “Pu..na.” We oppose the broad interpretation of the concept of “justification of terrorism” and the artificial criminalization of the actions of the accused. Considering the provisions on the presumption of innocence, recorded in Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, irremovable doubts about the guilt of the accused must be interpreted in his favor.

3. The imposition of Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is clearly unfounded, since the imputed text does not contain a threat to use violence, which is necessary for the application of this part of the article. Expressing a negative attitude towards the “Chekists” is not such a threat. Moreover, the threat must be feasible, and Krieger writes in the same text that he is not capable of using violence himself. This is confirmed, in particular, by the fact that in the two years since the publication, he has not used violence against law enforcement officers and has not been noticed in any specific incitement to the actual use of violence. The application of Part 1 of this article (“incitement of hatred or enmity without the threat of violence”) is impossible if the person has not previously been brought to administrative responsibility under a similar article of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In addition, we agree with the previously voiced position of the Memorial Human Rights Center and the Sova Center that the vague, evaluative concept of a “social group” should be excluded from anti-extremist legislation. Its presence in Russian criminal law has drawn criticism not only from human rights activists, but also from the scientific legal community. The concept of a social group is not disclosed in the criminal law, and there are no corresponding explanations in the acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. We find that if we recognize the legitimacy and necessity of protecting social groups by criminal law, then these should obviously be vulnerable groups, which clearly do not include Russian security officials, who have recently enjoyed inflated rights in society, protected by many often unauthorized or questionable laws and legal practices.
4. In our opinion, the threat of real consequences arising from the statements imputed to Krieger 2 and 3 years ago is highly questionable. Even if we consider the first text as containing approval of Zhlobitsky’s act, then, in view of all the above, in our opinion, its social danger is small. In any case, its measure, in our opinion, does not correspond to his detention.
5. In general, assessing the statements imputed to Mikhail Kriger from the point of view of international standards, it should be noted that neither the context of these statements, nor the personality of the alleged author provide grounds to consider it as a socially dangerous justification of terrorism capable of inciting someone to commit acts of a terrorist nature, nor are there grounds to attribute to the author the intention to call for the commission of such actions.
6. The texts were published two and three years ago. Considering the close attention of law enforcement agencies to participants in protest movements and the fact that Kriger has long been known to them as one of the most active participants in the protests, it is difficult to admit that these publications at the time passed by their attention. We believe that the initiation of a criminal case today and his deprivation of liberty are a continuation of the state’s campaign to finally “cleanse” the public space from any manifestation of dissent and a reaction to Mikhail Kriger’s consistent anti-war and critical position towards the current Russian government.

The project “Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial”, in accordance with the international Guidelines for the Definition of the Term “Political Prisoner”, finds that this criminal case is politically motivated, aimed at involuntarily ceasing criticism of state power and maintaining power by the subject of authority. The deprivation of liberty applied to Mikhail Kriger is clearly inadequate to the actual actions of which he is accused, given the combination of the filing of charges after two years, the obvious inadequacy of the prosecution of the possible public danger of his actions and the serious violation of his rights.

The independent human rights project “Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial” considers Mikhail Kriger a political prisoner.

Recognizing people as political prisoners or illegally persecuted for political reasons does not mean either agreement with their views and statements, or approval of their statements or actions.

Lawyers: Katerina Tertukhina and Mikhail Biryukov.

How can you help?

On our website you can make a donation to help all political prisoners.

Reference update date: 01/19/2023