The module is based on the case Kobaliya and Others v. Russia (2025), which was brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
The comic will introduce you to the case - please read it first.
If you are ready, click “Start Exercise” to get started!
Dive deep into the evolution of “foreign agents” legislation in Russia between 2012 and 2024.
Pay attention and investigate which parts of society were impacted through this authoritarian practice.
You will have the opportunity to test your knowledge at the next stage, so let’s get started!
To complete the task, grab and move the panorama, click on all 15 hotspots and read the text.
You’re correct!
Explainer: Multiple sectors of society were deeply affected by the foreign agents’ laws — from popular independent TV channels to individual comedians. Later versions of the laws also deeply affected educators, publishing houses, and bookshops. The stigma of being labelled “foreign agents” created mistrust among audiences and donors, making it impossible for these groups to continue working as they had before the designation. In contrast, the state sector — for example, civil servants, government-funded organizations, and state-sponsored media — was largely unaffected.
Good attempt. Here’s the correct answer.
The groups that were negatively impacted by “foreign agents” legislation in Russia include:
Pro-government media outlets, State-aligned NGOs (GONGOs) and State officials do not belong to the targeted groups.
Not quite — give it another try.
Explainer: Multiple sectors of society were deeply affected by the foreign agents’ laws — from popular independent TV channels to individual comedians. Later versions of the laws also deeply affected educators, publishing houses, and bookshops. The stigma of being labelled “foreign agents” created mistrust among audiences and donors, making it impossible for these groups to continue working as they had before the designation. In contrast, the state sector — for example, civil servants, government-funded organizations, and state-sponsored media — was largely unaffected.
Which human rights were violated in the Memorial case? You can select multiple answers.
Correct answers are:
Explainer:
The European Court of Human Rights emphasized that shutting down an organization is the harshest punishment and should be used only in exceptional cases, but in this case, it was used arbitrarily to punish and intimidate International Memorial and Memorial Human Rights Centre.
In addition, the Court explained that the right to freedom of expression includes both the right to express ideas and the right to remain silent. By forcing the applicants to attach the “foreign agent” label to all their public communications and express a message with which they disagreed, the authorities violated this right.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Good attempt. Here’s the correct answer:
The European Court of Human Rights emphasized that shutting down an organization is the harshest punishment and should be used only in exceptional cases, but in this case, it was used arbitrarily to punish and intimidate International Memorial and Memorial Human Rights Centre.
In addition, the Court explained that the right to freedom of expression includes both the right to express ideas and the right to remain silent. By forcing the applicants to attach the “foreign agent” label to all their public communications and express a message with which they disagreed, the authorities violated this right.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Not quite — give it another try.
Which human rights were violated in Darya’s case?
Correct answers are:
Explainer:
Article 8 of the Convention protects the right to personal development and to establish relationships with others and the outside world. The Court noted that the individual applicants’ designation as “foreign agents” seriously affected person’s private and professional life, in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Correct answers are:
Explainer:
Article 8 of the Convention protects the right to personal development and to establish relationships with others and the outside world. The Court noted that the individual applicants’ designation as “foreign agents” seriously affected person’s private and professional life, in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Not quite — give it another try.
Great work! You have clearly identified which specific human rights were violated by the Russian “foreign agents” legislation.
Now, let’s explore why such authoritarian practices are dangerous for individuals, civil society, and the foundations of human rights.
Let’s chat with the professor of International Human Rights Law to learn more.
Great job! Let’s check how you understood the dangers and consequences of “foreign agents” legislation from your conversation with the professor.
Mark if the following statement is True or False:
The "foreign agents" legislation in Russia undermines the exercise of human rights and suppresses criticism of the government.
Answer is correct!
Not quite — give it another try.
Good attempt. Here’s the correct answer: True!
Read the question and mark all correct answers, you will have three attempts to submit a correct answer:
What consequences can “foreign agents” laws lead to?Answer is correct!
Not quite — give it another try.
“Foreign agents” laws can lead to the following consequences:
Your choice regarding cookies on this site We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can use this tool to change your cookie settings. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.
