The Smolninsky District Court in St Petersburg has fined the European University 250,000 roubles (US$2,800) under an administrative charge of inciting hatred (Article 20.3.1 of the Administrative Offences Code) towards Russian forensic experts, according to the city’s joint court press office.
The administrative case was prompted by a 64-page analytical report, “How and by Whom Forensic Examinations Are Conducted: Experts in the Context of Interagency Collaboration.” It was published in the journal of the Institute for the Rule of Law at the European University at St Petersburg in 2024.
In September of the same year, the European University’s website featured a news item announcing the release of this report (it has since been deleted, but an archived version remains online). The announcement stated that the report’s authors had examined various aspects of the work of forensic experts in Russia, particularly forensic doctors and criminalists from the expert-criminalist centres of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. The research was based on interviews with the experts themselves.
In April 2025, the prosecutor’s office took note of the report. At its request, staff of St Petersburg State University submitted their assessment of the report, stating that it contained “signs aimed at denigrating the dignity of a group of people based on their membership of the social group ‘Russian forensic experts.’”
“The signs of denigrating the dignity of the group ‘forensic experts’ are expressed in harm to the professional (business) reputation of representatives of this social group,” the court press office stated.
As reported by Fontanka, a representative of the university requested in court that an expert review of the report be conducted, on the grounds that the accusation was based solely on the opinions of St Petersburg State University staff. The prosecution did not oppose the request, but the court refused the defence’s application.
The university representative also asked for the case to be discontinued. She stressed that the report was compiled from dozens of interviews with experts, lawyers, investigators and judges, meaning the opinions expressed in it were entirely subjective. The defence also argued that the report had been prepared in line with standards of professional ethics, and that it contained no insults or denigration.
Additionally, the university supported its position in court by providing independent reviews of the report from two specialists, including one from the Vinogradov Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Search
Illustration: OVD-Info