Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the Russian Federation violated Pavel Tolmachev’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by convicting him of criminal defamation and sentencing him to 80 hours of community service for criticizing a public official during a local meeting. The complainant had referred to the head of the Republic of Mari El as a “bandit” on the ground that he allegedly had committed criminal offenses. The domestic courts found him guilty under Article 128.1(2) of the Russian Criminal Code. Before the Committee, Tolmachev argued that his conviction constituted an unjustified restriction on his right to freedom of expression, as the statements were based on media reports and constituted permissible political criticism of a public figure. Russia argued that the conviction pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the official’s reputation and was based on evidence confirming the false and defamatory nature of the statements. In its assessment, the Committee recalled that restrictions to the rights to freedom of expression must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to a legitimate aim, in accordance with Article 19 of the ICCPR. It emphasized that public officials must tolerate a higher degree of criticism and that merely offensive or exaggerated statements are not sufficient to justify criminal sanctions. The Committee found that Russia had not demonstrated why criminal proceedings were necessary or why less restrictive civil remedies could not have been used. It also noted that the alleged harm was minimal, given the small audience and the petitioners’ subsequent public apology. The Committee concluded that the conviction and penalty imposed on Tolmachev were disproportionate and unnecessary to protect the reputation of others, violating his right to freedom of expression. It ordered Russia to provide adequate compensation, take measures to prevent similar violations.

Facts

The petitioner, Pavel Tolmachev, is a citizen of the Russian Federation who reported that between 2011 and 2013, he actively participated in civic activities in the Republic of Mari El, where he organized public meetings criticizing the performance of the local government. On September 8, 2012, during a public meeting in the city of Yoshkar-Ola (attended by fewer than thirty participants), he referred to the Head of the Republic, Mr. M, as a “bandit” and alleged that he had committed several criminal offenses.

As a result of this speech, on October 2, 2012, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Article 128.1(2) of the Criminal Code (defamation in a public speech or media). On July 24, 2013, the Justice of the Peace of Judicial District No. 2 of Yoshkar-Ola found the petitioner guilty of defamation and sentenced him to 80 hours of mandatory community service.

On August 2, 2013, Tolmachev appealed to the Yoshkar-Ola City Court, arguing that his statements constituted criticism of Mr. M’s actions in his capacity as a public official, rather than a personal insult. He maintained that his remarks were based on information published by the media and third-party testimonies, that he had no intent to harm Mr. M’s reputation, and that he had even publicly apologized and communicated such apology to the official’s press service. On September 17, 2013, the City Court dismissed his appeal.

Subsequently, on September 27, 2013, the petitioner filed a cassation appeal, which was dismissed on October 3, 2013, by the Yoshkar-Ola City Court itself, holding that jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mari El.

On November 10, 2012, Tolmachev appealed to the Supreme Court of Mari El, but his appeal was rejected on November 23, 2012.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On August 1 June 2017, Pavel Tolmachev submitted a communication before the UN Human Rights Committee. The petitioner alleged that the criminal conviction imposing 80 hours of mandatory community service for defamation constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR, as he was prosecuted for criticizing a public official acting in an official capacity, not a private citizen.

For its part, Russia argued that the petitioner had been convicted for knowingly disseminating false information, specifically for attributing to Mr. M alleged links with organized crime. The State explained that witness statements and a linguistic examination confirmed the defamatory nature of the remarks, and that the authorities possessed no evidence substantiating the alleged criminal connections. Consequently, Russia maintained that the conviction pursued a legitimate aim —protecting the reputation of others— in accordance with the restrictions permitted under Article 19 of the Covenant.

Decision Overview

The United Nations Human Rights Committee issued its decision on this matter on March 17, 2025. The central question before the Committee was whether the criminal conviction imposed on the petitioner for defamation —which included a sentence of 80 hours of community service— constituted a violation of the right to freedom of expression protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The petitioner argued that his right to freedom of expression was violated by being subjected to criminal proceedings solely for referring to the Head of the Republic of Mari El in his capacity as a public official, rather than as a private citizen. He explained that his comments were based on information disseminated by the media and third parties, and that he later issued a public apology and notified the official’s press service of his retraction. The State party, for its part, maintained that the conviction was based on relevant legal provisions and pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the reputation and rights of the public official concerned. Therefore, it argued that the restriction complied with the limitations on freedom of expression permitted under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The Committee recalled its General Comment No. 34, in which it emphasized that freedom of expression “is essential for any society and constitutes the foundation stone of every free and democratic society.” [para. 7.3] It further reaffirmed that any restriction must: (i) be provided by law; and (ii) be necessary and proportionate to achieve one of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 19.

In particular, the Committee underlined that in public debates concerning public figures and institutions, the value accorded to freedom of expression under the Covenant is especially high. It also recalled that the “mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the Covenant.” [para. 7.5] The Committee explained that defamation laws must be drafted with care so as not to become, in practice, instruments of censorship. Moreover, the Committee noted that States should consider refraining from penalizing false statements made without malice in the context of public debate.

The Committee accepted that the restriction at issue was provided by law and focused its analysis on whether the measure was necessary and proportionate. In assessing the circumstances, the Committee observed several elements indicating that the penalty imposed was excessive. It noted that the petitioner’s statements were made during a public event attended by fewer than thirty people, meaning any harm to the official’s reputation was limited. The Committee further emphasized that Tolmachev had acted on the basis of information published by third parties and had offered a public apology to the press service of Mr. M. Additionally, the Committee highlighted that “the State party has advanced no justification that, under those circumstances, bringing criminal charges against the author for slander and sentencing him to perform compulsory works was necessary. Neither has the State party explained why no other means were available to protect Mr. M’s reputation.” [para. 7.6]

Taking these factors and the nature of the penalty into account, the Committee concluded that the conviction was neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the reputation of others, and that the State had not demonstrated the existence of a compelling justification under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

For all these reasons, the Committee found that the facts amounted to a violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR. Consequently, it ordered the State party to provide the petitioner with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation, and to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future. It further requested that Russia publish and widely disseminate the decision and submit, within 180 days, information on the measures taken to implement it.