At the same time, the fact itself of initiating of such official documents resumes the most various discussions concerning essentially the results of the World War II, numerous terminological and ideological disputes characteristic for both public opinion in Russia and global reconsideration of history of the 20th century in general, and this is raised to the state level.

 
1. The main question appearing immediately after familiarization with the bill text is: where did the notion “fascism” itself disappear to from the legal circulation? It is well-known that the leaders of fascist Italy and some other allies of Nazi Germany did not call themselves Nazis but this did not prevent Hitler from considering Mussolini his “ideological father” and actively using fascists in his criminal actions. It is generally known that the USSR and anti-Hitler coalition countries defeated the fascist “axis” in 1945, and that the actions of all the members of this axis were criminal though it were first of all leaders of the German Nazis who were tried in Nurnberg in 1946.

 
2. The term “misinterpretation” chosen for description of corpus delicti punished by the new CC clause is also lame. The misinterpretation may be deliberate or unintentional, essential or secondary. This issue is obviously not well thought-out by the authors.

 
3. The question also appears what text of the verdict of Nurnberg tribunal is official and subject to protection from “misinterpretation”. It is known that coordinated trial materials were published in the USSR only in 1954 and are far from being the complete really existing materials of trial over Nazis. Some experts assert that we dispose 7 volumes of text in Russian though more than 40 volumes are available in English, German and French. It’s impossible to protect the text that was not introduced into broad scientific and public circulation, by the CC.

 
4. For example, how is it supposed to interpret the exact publication of extracts from the speeches of lawyers and the accused themselves? Quoting of these speeches can be also announced the propaganda of Nazism or something of this kind. There are also some questions where there is no consent any more at present between anti-Hitler coalition countries that arranged the Nurnberg trial. The position of leaders of the USSR of that time fixed in the verdict does not always coincide either with the point of view of the authorities of today’s Russian Federation. The classical example here is the execution of Polish officers in Katyn. Stalin and his assistants who passed this crime for doing of Nazis tried to include Katyn materials into the charge of Nurnberg trial.

 
5. Should not it be acknowledged that some “misinterpretations” of absolute triumph of idea of the World trial over fascism were a part of a compromise nature of the Verdict itself, and this caused some shortcomings of the verdict of Nurnberg tribunal, obvious shortcomings noted immediately in special opinion of the Soviet judge? It is known that the Soviet representative expressed his disagreement with acquittal of Schacht, Papen and Fritzsche, with application of lenient punishment to Hess, with refusal of tribunal to acknowledge the German high command, General Staff as well as imperial government the criminal organizations (“Nurnberg trial …”. Vol. 7. P. 516-541).

 
6. It is important to consider the international experience of counteraction to fascism by legislative measures accumulated during decades in some democratic countries. Thus, clause 3 of item “e” of the Constitutional law of Austria about prohibition of NSDAP with amendments in edition of 1992 looks as follows: “Persons who appeal in public, instigate or try to persuade for the actions prohibited according to item 1 or 3, especially with intention of glorification or laudation of NSDAP objectives, its institutions or activities are subject, if this deals with no more grave criminally liable deeds, to imprisonment for the term from five to ten years. In case of special danger of personality of the executor or of participation in the crime, this is punished by imprisonment of up to 20 years”. At the same time the punishment for dissemination of such ideas using publications, pictures, and mass media is also envisaged. Besides, the clause 3 item “g” states the following: “One who acts in the spirit of national-socialism otherwise than is noted in 3 “a” – 3 “f” is punished, if the deed is not subject to stricter punishment, by imprisonment for the term from one to ten years. In case of special danger of the executor or of participation in the crime, this is punished by imprisonment of up to twenty years”.

 
And according to item 3 “g”, the persons are also subject to punishment that deny in public, grossly underestimate, praise or try to justify the crimes of national-socialists against humanity in publications, on the radio or another mass media. 

The Western legislator used much more distinct, definite formulas than the term “misinterpretation” being obviously insufficient in the Russian bill and enabling inadmissibly broad interpretation. 

These tasks are solved in similar way in legislation of Germany:

Clause 131 of the Criminal code of Federative Republic of Germany:

“Representation of violence, incitement of racial hatred.

1. The following is liable to punishment: attempts of publications inciting racial hatred or representing monstrous or other inhuman evil deeds against people, as drawings expressing laudation or underestimation of such evil deeds, or represent evil deeds and inhuman past in the form being insulting for human dignity. The persons who do the following with these publications:

a) disseminate,

b) exhibit in public, hang out, demonstrate or make otherwise accessible,

c) suggest, provide or make accessible for persons that did not reach 18 years old or

d) fabricate, send, supply, store, suggest, notify, advertize, import onto the territory subject to this law or with the purpose of using such materials or things fabricated from them or helping the others to use them with the purposes noted in items a) – c),

are liable to punishment by imprisonment of up to 1 year or money penalty.

2. In similar way the persons disseminating the information described in paragraph 1 are liable to punishment.

3. Provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 are invalid if the dissemination of information serves the interpretation of historical events. 

This important issue is also specially fixed in clause 86 of the CC of FRG:

Dissemination of propagandist materials of anti-constitutional organizations.

1. The one who, on the territory subject to this law, disseminates or fabricates for dissemination on this territory, stores or imports onto this territory the propagandist materials of

а) a party announced anti-constitutional by the Federal constitutional court, or party or association towards which it is ascertained indisputably that they become an ersatz-organization of such party,

b) an association that was indisputably prohibited as it stands against constitutional system or against the system or idea of mutual understanding of people, or towards which it was indisputably ascertained that it is an ersatz-organization of such prohibited association,

c) a government, association, institution outside the effect of this law that act in the interests of parties and associations noted in items a) and b), or

d) propagandist means (materials) intended by their content for continuation of execution of aspirations of the former national-socialist organization

- is liable to punishment by imprisonment of up to 3 years or money penalty”.

2. The publications the content of which is directed against the free democratic system or idea of mutual understanding of people are considered to be propagandist materials in understanding of paragraph 1.

3. Paragraph 1 is not valid if propagandist materials or actions serve the purpose of education of citizens, art or science, researches or teaching, familiarization with events of the past or with history, or are undertaken with similar purposes. 

It should be acknowledged that, when stipulating the use of materials in scientific, educational sphere, the Western legislator envisaged special protection from too broad interpretation during application of criminal repressive measures. This issue should be taken into account by Russian legislators. 

The special problem is the enforcement of the new CC clause about inadmissibility of rehabilitation of Nazism. It is good if, among hundred Russian law-enforcers, public prosecutors, and judges, a single one can be found who can explain distinctly what are Nurnberg trial and Holocaust, what is the essence of Nazi ideology. Big preparatory, explanatory work would be required where it is impossible to do without specialists-historians, and representatives of the civil society. But there are also many people among the Russian scientists who are infected with ideas of intolerance, denial of the Holocaust. And what is the guarantee that the law-enforcers would not address to these very scientists? 

It is quite obvious that this bill would not be efficient at the beginning and would be often applied with serious distortions. 

Taking the above-stated into account, it is supposed to continue the work over the bill text with inclusion of representatives of scientific and human rights public and also the European experts into the working team.