Report on Human Rights Violations in the Republic of Komi

April 2026

Introduction

          This report is dedicated to the analysis of the human rights situation in the Republic of Komi in April 2026. The document records an escalation of repressive practices, manifested in the systematic violation of fundamental freedoms guaranteed both by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and by Russia’s international obligations under the UN Charter and applicable conventions.

Sources of Information (или Evidentiary Base)

The conclusions and factual part of the report are based on a comprehensive monitoring of open data, including:

• Official acts: Published decisions of regional and federal courts, registries of Rosfinmonitoring, and official statements of officials from the law enforcement agencies of the Komi Republic.

• Regulatory and legal analysis: Assessment of the impact of new federal laws (in particular, Article 13.53 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and legislation on countering terrorism) on law enforcement practice in the region.

• Verified evidence: Reports from independent media, data from human rights organizations, and the findings of investigations by independent experts.

• Cross-checking: In order to ensure maximum reliability, each incident has undergone a cross-verification procedure through several independent information channels.

Subject Matter and Limitations of the Report


          This report does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of all human rights violations in the region. Its purpose is to focus on key incidents as of April 2026, which most clearly illustrate sustained patterns of systemic disregard for international standards of justice.

In 2026, against the background of legal protest being driven deep underground and into emigration, the Directorate of the Federal Security Service (UFSB) for the Republic of Komi began to apply even harsher combinations of charges against the remaining activists, adding articles on the “financing of terrorism” to those on the “justification of terrorism”.

1. Case: The Case of Entrepreneur Denis Propp (Syktyvkar / Ukhta)

https://syktsud–komi.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=press_dep&op=1&did=360

https://vk.com/wall-179244416_8039

  • Subject Identity: Denis Mikhailovich Propp, born on 15 December 1998 (aged 27). A native of Ukhta, he resided and conducted business in Syktyvkar.
  • Current Status: Recognised as a political prisoner by the “Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial” human rights project. He is currently held in SIZO-1 (Remand Prison No. 1) in the city of Syktyvkar (Verkhny Chov settlement); charges have been brought, and the preliminary investigation is ongoing.
  • Substance of the Charges: The criminal case is being investigated under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Assistance to Terrorist Activity / Financing of Terrorism”), as well as Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Public Calls for the Performance of Terrorist Activity or Justification of Terrorism on the Internet”).

Mechanism of Persecution and Economic Sanctions:

  1. Pre-emptive Suffocation via Rosfinmonitoring: As with other “terrorist” cases in Komi, Denis Propp was added by the Federal Financial Monitoring Service to the registry of terrorists and extremists during the investigation stage, prior to any judicial decision on the merits.
  2. Civil Death: Inclusion in the list blocked his business assets and accounts, making it impossible to conduct legal economic activity in the region. Individuals placed on the registry are effectively deprived of their livelihoods, as they are legally permitted to withdraw no more than the minimum wage (MROT) per month for themselves and their dependants.
  3. The “Financing” Charge: The application of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (assistance and financing) alongside online justification is an expansionist practice of the FSB designed to maximise the severity of anti-war cases and guarantee enormous sentences for the accused (Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation carries a penalty of 8 to 15 years of deprivation of liberty, or life imprisonment). In such anti-war cases, the law enforcement authorities most frequently interpret “financing” as donations to legal Ukrainian or international humanitarian and human rights funds, or to initiatives designated as terrorist in the Russian Federation.

2. Case of Irina Gennadyevna Mashkaleva, Pensioner

https://memopzk.org/news/pensionerku-iz-syktyvkara-prigovorili-k-9-godam-za-perevody-dvizheniyu-vyacheslava-malczeva-cherez-donationalerts

  • Substance of the Charges: The pensioner from Syktyvkar was charged under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (financing of terrorism). The investigation claimed that she transferred money (publications mentioned an amount of 24 thousand roubles) to structures linked to the “Artpodgotovka” movement (of Vyacheslav Maltsev), which has been designated as terrorist in Russia.
  • Sentence: On 27 April 2026, the court sentenced her to 9 years in a general-regime correctional colony and a fine of 300 thousand roubles. From January 2026 until the sentencing, she was held in custody in SIZO-1 in Syktyvkar.
  • Position of the Defendant: Irina Mashkaleva pleaded not guilty. She maintained that she had no connection to radical organisations. According to the defence, the woman’s bank cards had been compromised or replaced on multiple occasions, and she had no knowledge of any transfer of funds to the specified accounts.
  • Course of the Proceedings: The prosecution’s case was built upon the initial testimony of her mother and son, who had told the investigation about her opposition views (specifically, her criticism of the military actions in Ukraine) and her hobby of collecting bladed weapons. However, during the actual court hearing, the relatives recanted these statements. The son stated that he had falsely implicated his mother due to poor personal relations, while the elderly mother explained that she had signed the interrogation record in an incapacitated state due to stress after security forces broke down the door to her apartment during a search. The court disregarded these recantations of testimony.

Human rights organisations (including the “Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial” project) have added Irina Mashkaleva to the lists of individuals prosecuted on political grounds.

Violation of the Rights to Freedom of Assembly and Expression in Syktyвkar (Russian Federation)

https://semnasem.org/news/2026/04/02/aktivistka-iz-syktyvkara-podala-isk-k-merii-iz-za-zapreta-citirovat-konstituciyu-na-plakatah

In April 2026, a gross violation of the fundamental civil and political rights of activist Viktoria Abadzhiyeva was recorded in the city of Syktyvkar (Komi Republic, RF). The Administration of the Syktyvkar Urban District twice refused to authorise a peaceful public event (a rally of up to 40 people) scheduled for 11 April in Michurinsky Park – an area officially designated as a ‘Hyde Park’ for holding public demonstrations under a simplified procedure.

The ground for the local administration’s official refusal was the claim that the aims of the rally were formulated ‘indefinitely’, whilst the proposed slogans in support of an affordable internet and compliance with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (guaranteeing the right to privacy and freedom of speech) allegedly ‘allow for ambiguous interpretation’ and ‘may contradict legislation’. Furthermore, the municipal authorities effectively introduced prior censorship by explicitly prohibiting the activist from using quotations from the current Constitution of Russia on posters and from campaigning for their observance.

This incident constitutes a comprehensive violation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

  1. Violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 21 of the ICCPR): The creation of artificial bureaucratic barriers to a small-scale rally in a specially designated area represents a disproportionate and unnecessary state interference. The authorities violated the presumption in favour of holding assemblies, using the refusal as a tool to suppress peaceful civic activity.
  2. Violation of the right to freedom of expression (Article 19 of the ICCPR): Prohibiting the display of statutory texts and calls to enforce the Constitution is a direct form of censorship. State authorities cannot possess the discretionary power to declare the norms of their own country’s supreme legal act ‘unlawful’ or ‘suspicious’. The restriction of freedom of speech in this case did not pursue any legitimate aim (such as national security, public order, or the protection of the rights of others) and violated the principle of legal certainty, as the officials’ decision was based on abstract assumptions rather than the law.
  3. Violation of the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (Article 25 of the ICCPR): Blocking public discussion on issues of high public importance – internet censorship and digital privacy – deprived citizens of the opportunity to lawfully influence state policy and express a collective stance.

This case clearly illustrates the practice of arbitrary interpretation of legislation by local authorities in the Russian Federation to suppress any form of independent public activity, including peaceful demands for the compliance with constitutional rights.

Threat to the Life and Health of Children

 
          On 16 April 2026, information appeared on the Komiinform website stating that the authorities of the Republic of Komi intend to send children for recreation to the Black Sea coast, specifically to children’s centres in the Krasnodar Krai and Crimea, which has been occupied since 2014.
https://komiinform.ru/news/294207
          From the perspective of the international human rights framework, sending children to the specified regions directly affects the fundamental rights of the child enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (specifically, Article 6 – the right to life and healthy development, and Article 24 – the right to the highest attainable standard of health and a safe environment).
          Human rights defenders and independent experts classify the actions of the authorities in organising children’s recreation in these zones as a systemic violation of safety standards. The risks are divided into several key areas.

  1. Violation of the Right to Life, Survival and Healthy Development
    This is a basic, fundamental right of the child, upon which all other legislation is constructed.
  • Substance of the Violation: The authorities knowingly expose children to the risk of poisoning by toxic substances (petroleum products and fuel oil) present in the water and sand. Contact with fuel oil and its vapours can cause severe allergic reactions, intoxication and long-term health problems.
  • Legal Grounding: Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has an inherent right to life, and the State is obliged to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and healthy development of the child.
  1. Violation of the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health

https://council.gov.ru/activity/meetings/172333/transcript

“Recreation” under conditions of an ecological disaster is an oxymoron.

  • Substance of the Violation: Instead of health promotion, children are being taken to places where sanitary doctors (including the Head of Rospotrebnadzor) explicitly forbid the opening of beaches. This means that the objectives of the trip (“recreation and health promotion”) knowingly cannot be achieved; furthermore, the harm incurred may outweigh any benefit.
  • Legal Grounding: Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child enshrines the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health facilities and recognises the importance of combating disease, including “through the provision of clean drinking-water and taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution”.
  1. Violation of the Right to a Safe Environment
  • Substance of the Violation: Officials ignore official data regarding the scale of the pollution (over 200 square kilometres) and the prohibitions issued by regulatory bodies for the sake of political or economic reporting (statements made by the Governor during a meeting with the President).

https://t.me/agentstvonews/14812

  • Legal Grounding: Pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to a favourable environment. In the context of children, this right is reinforced by the State’s obligation to exercise “special care” (Article 3 of the UN Convention).
  1. Discrimination and Disregard for the Interests of Vulnerable Groups
    Attention must be drawn to exactly who is intended to be sent to this camp as a matter of priority.
  • Substance of the Violation: The State is sending children to a potentially dangerous zone who either cannot protect themselves (orphans, children left without parental care — for whom decisions are made by guardianship officials) or face increased health risks (children with disabilities). Using these groups to “fill quotas” in a hazardous camp constitutes an abuse of their vulnerable position.
  • Legal Grounding: Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. In this instance, the interests of the children have been sacrificed for the sake of “planned targets” and the commercial interests of the camp.
  1. Physical Security and the Right to Life*

       The organisation of children’s recreation on the territory of the Crimean Peninsula under the conditions of the ongoing armed conflict is fraught with critical threats to life.

  • Regular Military Attacks: Crimea is a zone of active hostilities. The peninsula is systematically subjected to attacks utilising drones and long-range missiles (including Storm Shadow / ATACMS). Regular mass strikes against Sevastopol, military facilities, and headquarters were recorded in late May 2026.
  • The Air Defence Issue: Russian air defence systems are deployed in the immediate vicinity of Gurzuf (“Artek”) and Yevpatoriya (“Scarlet Sails”). The operation of air defence in itself poses a threat: debris from intercepted missiles and drones regularly falls onto civilian facilities and the coastline.
  • The Logistics Trap: The Crimean Bridge and railway communication routes remain legitimate and priority military targets. In the event of large-scale destruction of infrastructure, the rapid evacuation of thousands of children from the peninsula will become impossible, thereby endangering their lives.
  1. Violation of the Right to Information (for Parents and Guardians)

       Substance of the Violation: The Komi authorities (“Komiinform”) report the dispatch of children as a benefit, in all probability concealing or downplaying in the briefing notes for parents the actual scale of the ecological disaster in Anapa and the military threat on the territory of the Crimean Peninsula (occupied by the RF since 2014) [1]. Parents are being deprived of the opportunity to make a conscious and informed decision regarding the safety of their children.
The actions of the Ministry of Education of Komi and the Administration of the Krasnodar Krai in organising children’s recreation in Anapa and on the territory of the Crimean Peninsula (for the April-summer season of 2026) violate Articles 3, 6 and 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

*In March 2014, the Russian Federation carried out the unlawful annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine). This act constituted a gross violation of the peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and the bilateral obligations of the RF to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, as recorded and ratified in treaties between both states. In February 2022, the RF launched a full-scale, unprovoked armed invasion of the territory of Ukraine, which is classified as an act of aggression. From the perspective of international law, the Russian Federation, as the aggressor state and the occupying power, bears full international legal responsibility for the ongoing use of force, the military actions being committed, and their consequences. In accordance with the principle of the indivisibility of sovereignty, any responsive actions by Ukraine, including strikes against military facilities on the temporarily occupied territory of the Crimean Peninsula, are carried out within the framework of the legitimate right to self-defence and do not absolve the RF of responsibility for the escalation of the conflict.

International Legal Grounding and References to Documents

1. Violation of Territorial Integrity and Annexion (2014)

  • UN Charter (1945): Paragraph 4 of Article 2 explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
  • UNGA Resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”: This document officially reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders and explicitly calls upon states and international organisations not to recognise any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol [1].
  • Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970): Enshrines that the territory of a state shall not be the object of military occupation or acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal.

2. Violation of Bilateral and Multilateral Obligations of the RF

  • CSCE Helsinki Final Act (1975): Enshrines the principles of the inviolability of frontiers and the territorial integrity of states in Europe.
  • Budapest Memorandum (1994): In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, the RF, the USA and the UK committed to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
  • Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the RF and Ukraine (1997): Article 2 obliged the parties to respect each other’s territorial integrity and reaffirmed the inviolability of the existing borders between them (the treaty was in force at the time of the 2014 annexation).

3. Full-Scale Invasion (2022) and Classification as Aggression

  • UNGA Resolution ES-11/1 of 2 March 2022 “Aggression against Ukraine”: The UN General Assembly officially classified the actions of the RF as “aggression against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter” and demanded the immediate cessation of the use of force.
  • UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 Dec 1974 “Definition of Aggression”: An invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state on the territory of another state, as well as any military occupation or annexation, is classified as an act of aggression.
  • Order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 16 March 2022 (concerning the Allegations of Genocide case): The Court ordered the RF to immediately suspend the military operations commenced on 24 February 2022 on the territory of Ukraine.
  1. Responsibility for Consequences and Strikes against Crimea
  • The Right to Self-Defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter): Ukraine possesses an inherent right to individual self-defence in the event of an armed attack. Since Crimea legally remains the territory of Ukraine (as reaffirmed by UN resolutions), the conduct of hostilities to liberate the peninsula or the targeting of enemy military facilities on its territory is fully covered by Article 51 of the UN Charter.
  • Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2001): Under general international law, a state which has committed a wrongful act (aggression) is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by that act (Article 31) and bears responsibility for all consequences of its initial wrongdoing. All responsibility for material damage and casualties rests upon the original breach of the peace.

Scroll to Top