Human rights activists believe that the latest repression against Memorial is linked to the declining popularity of Vladimir Putin’s regime
Legal experts argue that the Supreme Court’s decision paves the way for the prosecution of members and supporters of such organisations. They also contend that the timing of the ruling was no coincidence.
The Supreme Court of Russia has declared the “International Public Movement Memorial” an extremist organisation and banned its activities within the country. However, no such organisation is formally registered either in Russia or abroad. The original human rights society, founded in 1987 to commemorate victims of political repression, was dissolved by the authorities in 2022 for allegedly failing to comply with “foreign agent” regulations. Since then, new organisations bearing the name “Memorial” have emerged in its place.
According to Sergei Davidis, director of the independent project Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial, there are at least two reasons behind the court’s decision. Both, he argues, stem from the authorities’ ongoing need to devise new repressive measures to keep the population in a state of fear. Davidis, who joined Memorial in 2008, believes the first reason is the decline in Putin’s approval ratings and in public trust in government policy.
“Against the backdrop of a war that is, fortunately, being waged unsuccessfully, a worsening economic situation, and growing discontent among broad sections of the population — including those who previously supported the war,” Davidis explains, “it becomes especially important for the authorities to destroy everything that remains alive and independent in the country.”
The second reason, he suggests, reflects the authorities’ desire to sever ties between Russians who have left the country in opposition to the regime and those who remain but hold similar views. In this context, he sees the move against Memorial — a well-known and authoritative organisation — as part of a broader campaign that also includes attempts to block messaging apps and searches of Novaya Gazeta’s editorial offices.
“Memorial’s influence extends far beyond human rights activism,” Davidis says. “It represents historical memory, a Nobel Prize — Memorial was among the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize laureates — and, fundamentally, a form of moral authority that people listen to. It is also linked to a genuine demand for alternative viewpoints based on human rights and freedom of expression. The regime recognises that its existing repressive measures are insufficient — voices from abroad are still being heard — and has therefore taken further steps to suppress them.”
Davidis also argues that Russian officials, influenced by conspiracy thinking, tend to interpret dissent as externally driven. “People cannot simply become disillusioned with Putin on their own, can they? That must mean they are being influenced by Memorial’s ‘destructive ideology’. Therefore, that ideology must be stopped — or at least stigmatised so that people are afraid to spread it,” he says.
Elena Zhemkova, one of the 11 founders of Memorial in 1987 and now executive director of the German organisation Zukunft Memorial, agrees that these factors are significant. However, she believes the authorities are particularly troubled by the fact that Memorial continues its work in exile. Notably, the Justice Ministry filed its lawsuit to designate Memorial as extremist on 27 March — the very day an international human rights conference opened in Berlin to mark the 80th anniversary of the birth of Arseny Roginsky, a leading figure in Memorial and a researcher of Stalinist repression.
“They are offended by any independent position — not just Memorial’s,” Zhemkova says. “This is a genuinely totalitarian regime that cannot tolerate any opinion but its own. Everything must function on command. Memorial, from the very beginning, has been a grassroots initiative dedicated to uncovering the truth about the past.”
She draws parallels with 2022, when Memorial was dissolved during the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine:
“Even during the trial to liquidate Memorial, the situation seemed absurd, despite the fact that we had paid all the fines. Yet the prosecutor openly explained the real reason: ‘You, Memorial, are forcing us — a nation of victors — to repent for our past crimes.’ That is what the authorities cannot accept. We never sought power; we sought justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. Perhaps that, too, is what provokes them. If we insist that criminals must be punished, then those who feel they may be committing crimes now may see that as a threat.”
This raises the question of potential consequences for those connected to Memorial or who publicly support it, even through social media. Legally, individuals who expressed support before the Supreme Court’s ruling should not be held liable. However, in a system of selective justice, Davidis warns that the authorities’ actions are unpredictable, and the risk of repression remains.
“The decision will not take effect until mid-May. After that, anyone cooperating with Memorial could face criminal charges for involvement in an extremist organisation — as is already happening, arbitrarily and unlawfully, in cases linked to so-called ‘international LGBT’, ‘international separatist’, or ‘international AUE’ movements,” he says. “Someone might write about political prisoners or ongoing Stalinist repression, and this could be interpreted as continuing Memorial’s work.”
While Davidis does not expect mass repression, he does not rule out targeted “show punishments” designed to intimidate dissenters.
He advises social media users who have previously posted about Memorial, or displayed its symbols, to review and possibly remove such content to avoid attracting attention from law enforcement. “Even the letter ‘M’, with or without a candle, in a public context may pose a risk,” he notes. “A first offence usually results in an administrative penalty — a small fine — but repeated offences can lead to criminal charges. If someone receives a warning, they should remove the content immediately.”
Davidis, who left Russia in 2024 and was later convicted in absentia on charges of justifying terrorism, emphasises that those most at risk are individuals still within Russia or those who travel there.
“For those under European jurisdiction, this may be an inconvenience, but not a serious threat. The real risks are faced by those inside Russia — or those who return,” he says.
Zhemkova, who also left Russia in 2022, concludes: “The more the authorities try to silence us, the more active we will become. We encourage anyone who feels safe to share their family histories with us. We will preserve them for the sake of historical memory and justice.”
