A bill was submitted to the State Duma on February 2 that would introduce criminal liability for “denying the fact of the genocide of the Soviet people” and for insulting the memory of its victims. The initiative was authored by United Russia deputies Olga Zanko, Sergei Boyarsky, Irina Pankina, Alexander Borisov, Elvira Aitkulova and Yevgeny Nifantyev. According to the publication, the government and the Supreme Court have already backed the draft.
The amendments would affect Articles 243.4 and 354.1 of the Russian Criminal Code. The first would extend protection beyond military graves and memorials to defenders of the Fatherland to include burial sites of victims of the “genocide of the Soviet people” and memorials dedicated to them. Desecration of such sites would fall under the existing penalties: a fine of up to 5 million rubles, forced labor for up to five years, or imprisonment for the same term.
The second article would explicitly add punishment for denying the very fact of the “genocide of the Soviet people” and for insulting the memory of its victims. The current article on the “rehabilitation of Nazism” already allows for a maximum penalty of a 3 million ruble fine, forced labor for up to three years, or imprisonment for the same period.
The explanatory note says that distorting “historical memory” threatens state security. At the same time, lawyer Yevgeny Smirnov notes that Russian law contains no legal definition of either the “genocide of the Soviet people” or “insulting memory.” He also says it remains unclear which memorials and burial sites would be covered by the new rules.
“Discussion of a published document could already be brought under this article,” Smirnov said, stressing that historians, archivists, journalists, bloggers and teachers could face criminal risk if their interpretation of World War II diverges from the official version.
In his view, such cases would likely continue to rely on linguistic expert reviews and testimony claiming that particular statements offended the memory of the victims. He described the bill as another repressive initiative built on vague wording.