Monthly Report on Human Rights Violations in the Republic of Mari El, Russian Federation

Prepared by: Liza (the name is pseudonymized for safety reasons)

October 2025

Executive Summary

This report documents a pattern of systemic human rights violations and administrative negligence in the Republic of Mari El, Russian Federation, during October 2025. The findings indicate a consistent failure by local and federal authorities to comply with both national legislation and international human rights obligations. The investigation highlights three emblematic cases. First, authorities have ignored a severe and recurring flooding crisis in Yoshkar-Ola caused by a state-funded construction project, denying residents their rights to a healthy environment and an adequate standard of living while refusing to act on official complaints. Second, civic activist Alexey Seregin faced procedural abuses, including the denial of legal counsel and the fabrication of an administrative charge, demonstrating the misuse of justice systems to target dissent. Third, activist Vladimir Danilov was fined for “discrediting the armed forces” based on a social media post that contained no direct reference to the military, in a judicial process marked by multiple procedural violations that violated his right to a fair trial. Collectively, these cases reveal a troubling trend of environmental mismanagement, the weaponization of administrative law to suppress civic activism, and a systematic erosion of procedural safeguards. The Russian Federation is encouraged to address these violations and align it practices with its commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other relevant international instruments.

Total number of violations: 28

Methodology

The findings presented in this report are based on open-source information including research conducted by independent experts and activists. Where possible, the report cross-references multiple sources to verify accuracy. Photos, documentation shared by local activists. The report does not claim to be exhaustive. It focuses specifically on three sets of incidents in October 2025 which illustrate systemic patterns of repression, neglect, and disregard for international standards.

Findings

Local Authorities Ignore Flooding Crisis

In July 2025, residents of the Sombathey and Remzavod districts of the city of Yoshkar-Ola submitted complaints to several authorities regarding the flooding of these areas (see Annex 1, Figure 1). The cause of the recurring floods lies in the destruction of the system of drainage and reclamation channels designed to divert rainwater, as a result of the construction of the new residential area “Svetly” (“Bright”) and the installation of a stormwater collector along Kirov Street. The cost of these works exceeded 250 million rubles, which were funded by taxpayers (1) . As a result of this construction, a new problem has emerged: after every rainfall, the roads and many private houses in the area become submerged.

In August, the local city administration responded to residents’ complaints, stating that there was no problem and that all standards had been met: “The issue is under control, and the contractor regularly cleans the drainage ditches in your area.” After response this, no action followed, and the area continued to flood (2) .

Due to the authorities’ ongoing neglect, in August the complaint was forwarded to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. No response has yet been received from the State Duma, but with the onset of autumn and the rainy season in October, the issue has become increasingly urgent. Private houses and roads continue to be consistently flooded, yet neither the local administration nor the State Duma has taken any action to resolve the problem (see Annex 1, Figure 2 and 3). This case demonstrates violations of:

  • the right to a favorable environment (Article 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; Federal Law No. 7-FZ “On Environmental Protection”);
  • negligence and abuse of official authority (Articles 293 and 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);
  • urban planning and technical regulations (Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 48 and 51);
  • misuse of budgetary funds (Article 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);
  • the procedure for reviewing citizens’ appeals (Article 33 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; Federal Law No. 59-FZ “On the Procedure for Considering Citizens’ Appeals”);
  • international environmental obligations (Aarhus Convention, 1998);
  • violations of citizens’ social and humanitarian rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, 1948).

1 https://t.me/tsarevokokshaisk/3454

2 https://t.me/tsarevokokshaisk/3550

Violations of Legal and Procedural Rights in the Case of Alexey Alexandrovich Seregin

On October 17, Alexey Alexandrovich Seregin, officially designated in the Russian Federation as a “foreign agent,” received a phone call from Deputy Prosecutor Ekaterina Zvereva, requesting that he provide testimony in a hooliganism case. He was ordered to appear at the prosecutor’s office on October 20. Mr. Seregin declined to appear without his legal representative, Ms. Irina Protasova, who was unavailable on the initially appointed date. His request to reschedule was denied, as Deputy Prosecutor Zvereva insisted on maintaining the original date. Subsequently, Ms. Protasova personally contacted Ms. Zvereva and succeeded in postponing the questioning to October 23 (3) .

Upon appearing on October 23, Mr. Seregin discovered that an administrative protocol had been issued against him under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) — “incitement of hatred and enmity towards a social group.” The protocol, prepared by Deputy Prosecutor Zvereva, identified two individuals, Mr. Yuri Vorobyov and Ms. Olga Katerukhina, as the “social group” in question. However, these individuals share no unifying characteristics as defined under Russian law (such as ethnicity, sex, origin, profession, or religion). The protocol also failed to specify any criteria establishing them as a social group. In fact, in his public posts, Mr. Seregin referred to Mr. Vorobyov and Ms. Katerukhina strictly as separate individuals rather than as members of any collective or group (4) . Given that the article permits administrative arrest, Mr. Seregin was immediately taken to court. Ms. Protasova filed a motion requesting a linguistic examination to verify the alleged content of the offense. Deputy Prosecutor Zvereva refused to consider the motion, stating that it would be handled by the court. Mr. Seregin later reported on his public Telegram channel that Ms. Katerukhina’s involvement in the case might be motivated by personal and career-related incentives, including financial rewards and aspirations for promotion (5).

The described actions indicate violations of both Russian and international legal standards. The refusal to reschedule the questioning in the absence of legal counsel constitutes a breach of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 25.5 of the CAO, which guarantee the right to legal assistance. The administrative protocol was drawn up in violation of Article 28.2 of the CAO, as it lacks a legally defined basis for identifying a “social group,” rendering the accusation procedurally invalid. The refusal to review the defense’s motion for expert examination contradicts Article 24.4 of the CAO. Immediate referral of the accused to court without sufficient evidentiary review undermines the independence of the judiciary as protected by Article 120 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the potential presence of personal and career-related interests may indicate abuse of official authority under Article 285 of the Criminal Code and potential corruption under Article 290 of the Criminal Code and Federal Law No. 273- FZ “On Combating Corruption.”

These actions also conflict with Russia’s international human rights obligations, specifically Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ensuring the right to a fair trial, defense, and an impartial tribunal), as well as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equality before the law and protection from arbitrary accusation.

3 https://t.me/I_want_to_understand/31179
4 https://t.me/I_want_to_understand/31262
5 https://t.me/I_want_to_understand/29250

The Case of Vladimir Danilov: Violations of Russian Legislation and International Standards

On October 28, 2025, the Yoshkar-Ola City Court (Baumana Street) heard an administrative case against activist Vladimir Danilov (a civic activist advocating against the war in Ukraine). Judge Rifkat Sabiryanov found him guilty under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF) (“discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”) and imposed a fine of 30,000 rubles. Danilov was accused for a post on the social network VKontakte dated June 30, 2025, in which he identified as targets “those who plan and conduct the war in Ukraine on both sides” and described the maximization of human losses among their own populations. The post did not directly mention the Russian army or specify individuals pursuing this goal (6) (see Annex 1, Figure 4).

Previous Publications and Possible Motives for Persecution:

Earlier, on September 7, 2025, Danilov posted on VKontakte raising concerns about the integrity of local authorities responsible for the restoration of Yoshkar-Ola Airport. He noted that limestone gravel had been used for the runway instead of the required granite gravel, which violates safety requirements for airports and road foundations in Mari El. Danilov also reported submitting a request to the Investigative Committee of Russia (ICR) in Mari El to verify the proper use of budget funds in the airport’s reconstruction (7) . On October 14, he indicated that the ICR ignored his request, after which he filed complaints with the prosecutor’s office and technical supervision authorities.

According to the Federal Law “On the Procedure for Considering Citizens’ Appeals” (Articles 7 and 10), authorities are obliged to consider citizen appeals and provide a response within the statutory timeframe. Failure to do so is a violation of the law. In his post, Danilov suggested that local authorities were economizing on reconstruction by using cheaper, unsafe materials, which could be part of a corruption scheme. Such civic engagement may have been a possible motive for subsequent administrative prosecution (8) .

Procedural Violations During the Case under Article 20.3.3 CAO RF:

1. Absence of Representatives Who Drafted the Protocol: The police officers who prepared the administrative protocol were absent at the trial. The judge did not verify the participants’ consent to proceed without them, and Danilov explicitly objected. This violates Articles 25.1, 26.1, and 26.3 CAO RF.

2. Refusal to Conduct an Independent Linguistic Expert Examination: The defense requested an independent examination to objectively assess the content of the post. The court only allowed an internal analysis by the Ministry of Internal Affairs expert Tatyana Mukhametgalieva, which lacked evaluation of the words allegedly discrediting the Armed Forces. This violates the right to defense under Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 25.4 CAO RF.

3. Refusal to Question the Police Officer and the Expert: The judge refused to summon the protocol author and the expert, claiming he could evaluate their work themselves. This violates Articles 26.3 and 26.8 CAO RF (the right to present evidence and question witnesses/experts).

4. Ignoring Requests for Administrative Investigation: The police did not respond to the defense’s lawful requests, despite being obligated to either consider them or provide a reasoned refusal (Articles 25.4 and 25.5 CAO RF).

Violations of International Standards:

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 19 and 20): Danilov’s freedom of expression and information was restricted. Imposing administrative punishment for statements that do not directly threaten or harm the state violates international standards of free speech.

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 14 and 19):

  • Right to a fair trial (Article 14) was violated due to the absence of questioning key witnesses and experts, and the case being heard without representatives of the authorities who drafted the protocol.
  • Freedom of expression (Article 19) was violated, as punishment was applied for statements that did not contain calls to violence.

3. Venice Commission Principles on Freedom of Expression: Punishing publications that do not directly threaten anyone is considered a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression (9) .

The case of Vladimir Danilov demonstrates systemic violations of procedural norms and restrictions on freedom of expression, including:

  • Hearing the case without key representatives of the authorities who drafted the protocol;
  • Refusal to conduct an independent expert examination;
  • Refusal to question experts and police officers;
  • Ignoring defense requests by the police;
  • Imposing a fine for statements that do not contain direct threats.

These violations contravene the Constitution of the Russian Federation, provisions of the CAO RF, and international standards for freedom of expression and fair trial. Indirectly, the authorities’ actions may have been motivated by Danilov’s civic activism, including exposing potential corruption in the airport reconstruction project.

6 https://vk.com/wall317520085_18503
7 https://vk.com/wall317520085_18182
8 https://vk.com/wall317520085_18416
9 https://t.me/I_want_to_understand/31327

Recommendations

The cases documented in the Republic of Mari El reveal a pattern of contravening Russia’s international human rights obligations. It is recommended to call upon the Russian Federation to:

  • Immediately and impartially investigate the alleged negligence and procedural violations by authorities in Yoshkar-Ola, particularly concerning the failure to address the environmental crisis in the Sombathey and Remzavod districts and the handling of citizen appeals, as this impacts the rights to an adequate standard of living and health.
  • Take concrete measures to ensure that national legislation, including the Code of Administrative Offences, is applied in a manner that upholds the right to a fair trial, by guaranteeing the rights to legal counsel, to present a defense, and to challenge evidence, as seen in the cases of Alexey Seregin and Vladimir Danilov.
  • Cease the application of overly broad administrative provisions, such as Articles 20.3.1 and 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, to penalize individuals for legitimate criticism and dissenting opinions, and to review the convictions in cases where these laws were used to restrict freedom of expression, in line with its obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • Establish and reinforce independent national monitoring mechanisms to provide effective oversight of local governance, environmental management, and judicial conduct to prevent the misuse of authority and protect civic space
Scroll to Top