The editors of Rosbalt handed over to the HRC a copy of the resolution on the search that was carried out at the agency on April 18 – it was signed by P.P. Milovanov. According to this document, the search was carried out on the fact of the dissemination in the media of information discrediting businessman Alisher Usmanov, but in connection with some publication of journalist Alexander Shvarev not in Rosbalt, but somewhere on the Internet, “including on the rucriminal website .info” (now completely blocked).
Rosbalt insists that it did not publish its own materials that would mention the name of Usmanov, but the agency cannot vouch for the journalist Shvarev – he has the right to work for other media, including under a pseudonym, and he could be in his dossier and drafts at all any information.
The Rosbalt editors drew attention to the demonstrativeness of the search (although a seizure would have been enough here) on the same day, and all this looks mysterious, but it is important for us to answer two questions:
what exactly could the subordinates of Colonel Milovanov look for in the computer and in the desk of Shvarev, as well as the editor-in-chief of the agency Nikolai Ulyanov?
For what purpose?
In accordance with Art. 41 of the Mass Media Law “the editorial office is obliged to keep the source of information secret and is not entitled to name the person who provided the information on the condition of not disclosing his name, except in cases when the corresponding request was received from the court in connection with the case being processed by him”; the same rule. 49 of the Mass Media Law also establishes for a journalist. But even in court, they may refuse to name the source of information – in this case, the journalist and the editorial office will have to confirm its authenticity with other evidence.
The plot of the libel case was not disclosed in detail in the search warrant, but it is connected with Usmanov and the “Shakro Molodoy case” (as they say in Rosbalt, this name was used by interrogators to search computers). We do not know the essence of the story and we will not go into it, but it is clear that it causes some anxiety to someone. It may be interesting not only the information itself, which in one form or another was sought by the subordinates of Colonel Milovanov, but also its sources and methods of obtaining.
In November 2018, Usmanov applied to the Basmanny Court with a claim for the protection of honor and dignity against a certain A.M. Volkov and demanding that Roskomnazor block information on the site rucriminal.info. According to the GAS “Justice”, Usmanov won this case, no one appealed the decision, but his text is not in the file cabinet. However, in the court for the protection of honor and dignity, even if the real author of the note came there, he might not have named the source of his information – even at the cost of losing the case.
Therefore, apparently, it was decided to use criminal law mechanisms. The case under Part 2 of Art. 128 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (on libel in the media) could theoretically be initiated without a statement from the victim, but such a possibility is unlikely. In this case, the operation at Rosbalt and at Shvarev’s house was most likely aimed at seizing from the journalist the evidence that he may have or had, if he did not think in advance to hide the dangerous dossier away. They weren’t looking for drugs, were they? (Otherwise they would have been “found”.)
In summary, the purpose of the special operation was not so much to intimidate journalists (although such an effect was achieved along the way), but to circumvent the guarantees provided to them under the Mass Media Law. And this fully fits into the existing trends: both attacks on freedom of speech, and the resolution of civil law disputes with the help of the Criminal Code.
The HRC Permanent Commission on Freedom of Information and the Rights of Journalists also issues a statement expressing its concern over the search at Rosbalt.
