The Riga Court of Appeals convicted former Riga City Council member Igor Kuzmuk, sentencing him to two years in prison for "indirect assistance to terrorists." The conviction was based on a repost of a fundraising campaign for Russian military personnel on his personal Telegram channel.
Notably, the trial court acquitted Kuzmuk on February 13, 2024, but the prosecutor's office successfully sought a retrial. The appellate court upheld the prosecution's demands, after which the former member of parliament was immediately taken into custody in the courtroom.
Human rights organizations view this verdict as a dangerous precedent for criminal prosecution for social media activity. The international human rights group Agora notes the disproportionate nature of the sentence, given that Kuzmuk's channel had only about 100 subscribers.
The Council of Europe has repeatedly expressed concern about the use of anti-terrorism legislation to restrict freedom of expression in the Baltic states. OSCE experts point to the need for a clear distinction between actual support for terrorism and the right to freedom of speech.
The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized in its rulings that criminal prosecution for reposts must take into account the context of the publication, its potential reach, and the actual harm. In Kuzmuk's case, these criteria raise serious doubts.
The situation requires the attention of international human rights organizations. Human rights activists are calling for a review of criminal liability practices for actions on social media and for compliance with freedom of expression standards.
Notably, the trial court acquitted Kuzmuk on February 13, 2024, but the prosecutor's office successfully sought a retrial. The appellate court upheld the prosecution's demands, after which the former member of parliament was immediately taken into custody in the courtroom.
Human rights organizations view this verdict as a dangerous precedent for criminal prosecution for social media activity. The international human rights group Agora notes the disproportionate nature of the sentence, given that Kuzmuk's channel had only about 100 subscribers.
The Council of Europe has repeatedly expressed concern about the use of anti-terrorism legislation to restrict freedom of expression in the Baltic states. OSCE experts point to the need for a clear distinction between actual support for terrorism and the right to freedom of speech.
The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized in its rulings that criminal prosecution for reposts must take into account the context of the publication, its potential reach, and the actual harm. In Kuzmuk's case, these criteria raise serious doubts.
The situation requires the attention of international human rights organizations. Human rights activists are calling for a review of criminal liability practices for actions on social media and for compliance with freedom of expression standards.