“We protest because we are human — we have feelings.” A court in Crimea fined a Crimean Tatar historian over remarks about a tribunal for the 1944 deportation
Historian Enver Seitmemetov (right). Photo: Crimean Solidarity
Text by Lutfiye Zudiyeva
In Crimea, a Russian-controlled court has fined the retired history teacher Enver Seitmemetov under the article, which prohibits publicly equating the role of the USSR and Nazi Germany in World War II . He was ordered to pay 2,000 rubles for stating that, following the Nuremberg Trials that condemned Nazi criminals, an international tribunal should be held for those responsible for the 1944 deportation of the Crimean Tatars in the USSR. This is only the second time this article has been applied in Crimean judicial practice.
I have known Enver-ağa for many years, and it was this personal, human connection that did not allow me to remain merely a spectator. Together with his lawyer, Edem Semedlyaev, I took part in the court hearing as a public defender.
My article is about how the words of an elderly historian, addressing the tragic events endured by almost every Crimean Tatar family, became grounds for an administrative case.
An almost predictable event
In the early morning of November 25, 74-year-old Enver Seitmemetov was awakened by noise. A bright light flashed beneath the windows of his home in the Old Town of Bakhchysarai, and unfamiliar voices were heard. The pensioner opened the door and immediately found himself face to face with an armed man in camouflage. Several more special force officers were already entering the yard behind him, while a ladder placed against the gate from the outside was being removed.
The security officers said they had come to carry out a court-ordered inspection. Enver Seitmemetov asked them not to enter right away, as his disabled wife needed time to get dressed. Surprisingly, the officers had waited outside the door.
Enver Seitmemetov recalls that morning: “I made a comment about them wearing shoes. They said not to worry — they’d wipe the floor later.”
Several days later, we discuss in detail what he’d gone through on that day.
Political prisoners (left to right): Rustem Seitmemetov, Osman Seitumerov, and Seitumer Seitumerov. Slogans on T-shirts: “MY FAMILY,” “OUR PEOPLE,” “WAS NAMED A TERRORIST.” Photo: Crimean Solidarity
The visit from the security forces came as little surprise. Enver Seitmemetov is the uncle of three political prisoners — Seitumer, Osman, and Abdulmedzhit Seitumerov — who have been convicted and accused in the Hizb ut-Tahrir case . Since their detention in 2020, the elderly activist has publicly defended them. He attended court hearings involving his nephews and other arrested Crimean Tatars, travelled with delegations to meet the officials, and, despite his advanced age, even attended hearings in Moscow and Rostov-on-Don. When Fevziye Osmanova, Elviza Aliyeva, Nasiba Saidova, and Esma Nimetullayeva were arrested in Crimea in October 2025 on the same charges, he joined a delegation of Crimean Tatars to visit the Crimean Council of Ministers, criticizing the security forces for persecuting women.
For those reasons, such events often become almost predictable. Still, when security forces burst into a home, it is always a blow — both to one’s health and to the sense of safety, which collapses in an instant.
According to Enver Seitmemetov, the house was thoroughly searched, though the officers were not rude. They checked cabinets, bookshelves, personal belongings, and his phone, and leafed through religious literature — searching, as they said, for prohibited items. Ultimately, nothing was seized. After the inspection, the officers informed Enver Seitmemetov that an administrative case had been opened against him and that he would have to go with them to Simferopol. He was advised to take his medical records, pension certificate, medications, and some food with him. He was allowed to contact a lawyer.
Besides his phone and documents, Seitmemetov put a small book of prayers and a bag with water and dried bread into the chest pocket of his jacket.
Video commentary
At 8:30 a.m., he was taken in a police car to Centre “E” (the Centre for Combating Extremism) — the Crimean unit of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs — in Simferopol.
“I immediately called my family so they wouldn’t worry, and I called my brother to tell him I was there. I stayed there until around 11 a.m. When I asked to perform ablution or use the toilet, they allowed it,” the pensioner recalls.
At Centre “E”, he was informed about the grounds for administrative charges against him. Those were due to Seitmemetov’s commentary in a video released by the Crimean Solidarity human rights movement to mark the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Deportation of Crimean Tatars on May 18, 1944. In the video, Enver Seitmemetov is identified as a historian. Crimean Tatar activists, lawyers, and human rights defenders also speak about the tragedy.
A mourning rally in Simferopol on the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatar People, marking an anniversary of the 1944 deportation. May 18, 2014. Photo: Stas Yurchenko, Graty
“This is the continuation of the genocide against the Crimean Tatar people that began in 1783, it was the continuation…,” Seitmemetov said in a video. His commentary was edited into fragments, intercut with statements by other speakers. “They tried to gather everyone [Crimean Tatars] in the square in 15 minutes — amid shouting, noise, crying. They thought they were being taken for execution, as the events that had taken place during the [Second World] War against Jews were still fresh in people’s memories… And after 1944, the authorities also failed to atone to the Muslims of Crimea and the Caucasus, as well as to those who were repressed, deported, and systematically dispossessed by the state. I say ‘systematically’ because a state policy of ‘Crimea without Crimean Tatars’ was being implemented… The international community — or all those who oppose violations of rights today — passed the human rights laws at the United Nations in 1948, but in practice, those laws do not function as intended. Along with the Nuremberg Trials, I believe that another international tribunal should have also been held, one that would condemn those victors… The day will come when everything will fall into place, and families will be reunited with their sons, fathers, and husbands…”
According to officers from Centre “E”, it was precisely this statement about the need for an international tribunal for those responsible for the deportation of Crimean Tatars in 1944 that constituted the public equation of Soviet policy toward the Crimean Tatars with the policy of Nazi Germany. This was classified as a violation of Article 13.48, Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
This article was introduced into Russian legislation in April 2022. It prohibits public comparison — in the media, online, or at public events — of the actions and goals of the USSR with those of Nazi Germany, as well as the denial of the decisive role of the Soviet people in the victory over Nazism. According to data from the Judicial Department of the Russian Federation, six such cases were brought before courts of first instance in 2023, four in 2024, and a further four in the first half of 2025.
Two such cases have been registered in Crimea over the past three years. The first was initiated in 2023 in Kerch against a pensioner over a post on Odnoklassniki social network. He was charged with “publication containing information about the negative activities of the USSR during World War II.” According to the decision published in the court register, the case concerns a repost from the blog of Arkady Babchenko — who is designated a foreign agent in Russia and is also included on the Rosfinmonitoring’s list of terrorists and extremists — made on May 9, 2022. The man shared the post while in Kyiv. In August 2023, already back in Kerch, he submitted a written confession and expressed remorse. In October of the same year, the Magistrate Court of Judicial Precinct No. 51 of the Kerch Judicial District fined him 2,000 rubles.
“I do not admit the charge”
By noon, officers from Centre “E” brought Enver Seitmemetov to the Magistrate Court of Judicial Precinct No. 10 in Simferopol. The hearing was delayed because the judge was occupied. Seitmemetov and his lawyer, Edem Semedlyaev, waited in the hallway for several hours. It was around 3 p.m. when the participants of the hearing were finally invited into the courtroom.
Enver Seitmemetov asked the court to allow my participation in the trial as a public defender, but the request was denied — on the formal ground that I do not have a legal education. However, the law does not require this — a motion from the defendant is sufficient. Ultimately, during the first hearing, I was allowed to remain in the courtroom, but only as a member of the audience.
The defence lawyer immediately asked the court to dismiss the administrative case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Under this article, a person must face administrative liability within three months after the publication, but much more time had passed. Seitmemetov was charged over a video published on May 18, 2025. As the court later established, the video had originally been posted five years earlier, on May 18, 2020, and was merely reposted on the Crimean Solidarity’s Facebook page.
However, the judge stated that all case materials must be examined before a decision could be made.
Enver Seitmemetov. Photo: Crimean Solidarity
The judge then read out an expert opinion of Oleg Romanko, Doctor of Historical Sciences and Head of the Department of Russian History at the Crimean Federal University, dated November 24, 2025. According to Romanko, Seitmemetov’s statements “equate the actions of the USSR connected with the forced deportation of Crimean Tatars, Greeks, and others in May 1944 with the crimes of the Nazi German leadership.”
“What Romanko has written is on his conscience. I do not admit the charge,” Enver Seitmemetov said when the court gave him the opportunity to present his explanation.
He tried to explain that the video — and therefore the police protocol and the expert opinion — contained only isolated statements from him and lacked the full context.
“German fascists also burned down more than 120 villages in mountainous Crimea, over 90 of which were Crimean Tatar villages, for helping the partisans. Then, thousands of people were taken to Germany for forced labour. When I spoke about an international tribunal, I had that in mind, too. Not only [what] the Soviet Union did. Yes, in 1989, a declaration was adopted , condemning what had happened in the Soviet Union and allowing [Crimean Tatars] to return [to their homeland] to some extent. Today, we live in our homeland. But when I speak, I express my opinion,” Seitmemetov told the court.
The historian also recalled that, on the orders of Joseph Stalin, people were forcibly deported from Crimea. According to documentary evidence and accounts passed down by his parents, almost half of the deported population — about 46% of Crimean Tatars — died in exile from hunger and harsh living conditions.
“My grandmother, now deceased, took six children with her and managed to save them in the steppes of Uzbekistan. The husband of my other grandmother — my mother’s father — died and was repressed in 1938 as an ‘enemy of the people,’ even though he had done nothing of the kind; he was a teacher. My grandmother was left alone with two children: one daughter was three years old, the other seven or eight,” Enver Seitmemetov said, struggling to contain his emotions.
He added that he had worked as a history teacher in Uzbekistan and Crimea for a total of 25 years.
“You must understand clearly what you are doing when comparing the actions [of the USSR] and mentioning the Nuremberg Tribunal at the same time… The only court that tried fascism and condemned it was the Nuremberg Tribunal. When you say in your public statement that the leadership of the former Soviet Union should be held accountable in the same way as those at the Nuremberg Trials… I do not understand, what do you mean?” the judge responded, continuing the discussion with the defendant.
The defence lawyer Semedlyaev interrupted their dialogue and noted that Seitmemetov had not published the video himself. He requested that the expert Romanko be summoned to court so that he could explain how he had concluded that Seitmemetov’s words constituted an offence.
The judge agreed with the defence lawyer, who pointed out procedural violations in the preparation of the expert opinion — it lacked a written acknowledgement warning the expert of liability for providing a false conclusion. The judge was unconvinced by the arguments of Centre “E” officer Roman Filatov, who claimed having warned the legal expert verbally.
The defence lawyer also demanded that the administrative protocol be returned for review, citing legal violations and unreliable information. Specifically, Semedlyaev objected to the references to previous administrative records concerning the history teacher — two traffic fines and an administrative arrest for failing to comply with a lawful order of a police officer — calling those unlawful. Filatov responded that “this information characterised the individual.”
“How can it characterise him if he is currently clean before the state and the law? Even if he had been convicted a hundred and fifty times — when those convictions have been expunged, they cannot characterise him in any way,” the defence lawyer objected.
The court refused to return the police protocol, instructing officers from Centre “E” to ensure the appearance of the legal expert, Oleg Romanko, and adjourned the hearing until December 2. Seitmemetov was released and allowed to return home.
“I am a history teacher, I have been teaching for many years, but I still feel awkward being called a historian,” Enver Seitmemetov noted after the hearing.
“What was Seitmemetov’s intent when he gave the interview?”
At the second hearing, the judge changed: the proceedings were now conducted by Sergey Moskalenko. As it turned out, the previous judge had been temporarily substituting for him, which effectively meant that the case had to be considered from the outset.
This time, I was admitted to the defence, as the previous judge made no written refusal against it in the case file. Enver Seitmemetov said it was important for him to have support beyond his lawyer.
Four additional spectators — Seitmemetov’s relatives and friends — were allowed into the courtroom. The elders entered with smiles, slightly easing the tension: they listened attentively, supporting Enver-ağa with glances and quiet words. A sense of human closeness filled the room.
Lawyer Edem Semedlyaev. Photo: Crimean Solidarity
Edem Semedlyaev and I focused on the procedural violations, while Enver Seitmemetov himself was to explain what he had meant in his comments.
First and foremost, lawyer Edem Semedlyaev reiterated that his client could not be held administratively liable under the article, as the statute of limitations had long expired. The law does not require deleting a publication, so its continued availability online does not constitute a continuing offence — even if the material remains automatically stored on a website, on social media, or is reposted.
Furthermore, the lawyer noted that Seitmemetov had been interviewed in a private setting and had not published the interview himself. His statement was made public by third parties — the interviewer, the media, or bloggers. Therefore, liability under Article 13.48 of the Code of Administrative Offences should rest with them. Seitmemetov himself had no direct intent to publicly equate the actions of the USSR with those of Nazi Germany.
“What was Seitmemetov’s intent when he gave the interview? There was a video camera in front of him, an interviewer — at least two people. When he said these words and drew a comparison with the Nuremberg Trials, I believe he acted deliberately, and his actions contain the elements of the administrative offence in question,” said Roman Filatov, an officer from Centre “E”, in response to Semedlyaev’s arguments when the court gave him the floor.
Filatov argued that his legal and general education were enough to identify a comparison of the USSR with Nazi Germany. For a deeper understanding of the historical context, the police had turned to a historian. Whether this constituted an act of public equating was left to the discretion of the court.
Questioning of expert Romanko
Judge Sergei Moskalenko allowed the defence to question the expert, Oleg Romanko, in detail. Romanko began with a brief account of his professional and academic background, stating that he had prepared the conclusion at the request of the university administration, which in turn had been approached by officers from Centre “E.” The professor considered himself “sufficiently qualified” and had previous experience participating in court proceedings, including a case on the genocide of the Soviet people, which was heard in Crimea. He has been studying the history of World War II for approximately 25 years.
Romanko emphasised that, as a Doctor of Historical Sciences, he “relied on scholarly sources” to assess Seitmemetov’s statements.
“I cite only one source. Of course, I consulted more because the Nuremberg Tribunal is a fairly well-known event,” Romanko explained, and then gave a brief introduction to the history of the military tribunal.
The expert then added that Senator Alexei Pushkov had been one of the initiators of the legislative amendments that introduced a ban on publicly equating the role of the USSR with that of Nazi Germany during World War II.
With that, he concluded his statement, and the court gave the floor to the defence.
“Could you tell me which methodologies were used to reach your conclusion?” lawyer Edem Semedlyaev asked the historian. “Historical research methodologies. The principles of academic research: consistency, objectivity, causality. In addition, general scholarly methods were applied.” “Why are they not specified in the conclusion itself?” “Because this is not an academic study,” the historian replied curtly.
I then took the floor and noted that a court expert opinion should be the result of the specialist’s own scientific work, yet in many paragraphs Romanko’s text reproduces the style and punctuation of an existing article by Professor Alexander Savenkov, ‘The Nuremberg Trials, 1945–1949’, published in the Great Russian Encyclopaedia, which provides a concise overview of the work of the International Military Tribunal.
“I do not bear responsibility for that. A great deal of material is available online nowadays — it happens,” Romanko objected.
As he continued answering questions by the defence, Romanko eventually stated that “any reference to the actions of the Soviet leadership in the context of the Nuremberg Tribunal constitutes public equating.”
“The Soviet Union as a state is not guilty in this respect. The Stalinist regime that carried this out is to blame. Moreover, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union condemned it, naturally. And most of the rights of the deported people were restored during the Soviet period. There was a final rehabilitation in 2014,” continued Romanko, a doctor of historical sciences.
A mourning rally in Simferopol on the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatar People, marking the anniversary of the 1944 deportation. May 18, 2013. Photo: Stas Yurchenko, Graty
At this moment, Enver Seitmemetov glared at him, clearly struggling to restrain himself from commenting.
After hearing the expert’s opinion, the defence asked Romanko whether he had any education in linguistics.
“If we’re talking about the connotations of words,” he replied, “I did not assess that. That is the linguistic area of expertise.”
When Semedlyaev finished questioning the expert, he read out a motion. In it, the defence lawyer argued that, instead of a historian, the police should have engaged a linguist who would have conducted a detailed linguistic analysis of the defendant’s speech, applied court-recognised methodologies, and examined it in relation to historical events. The lawyer believes that Romanko had misunderstood the linguistic context of Seitmemetov’s remarks, calling into question both the reliability of his conclusions and the legal validity of the expert opinion.
“I request that a repeated, additional examination be ordered and that a linguist be appointed. A historian cannot conduct this type of analysis — only a linguist can determine the fact of public equating,” the lawyer concluded.
The defence insisted that in his conclusion, the expert had failed to provide a reasoned answer to the questions posed by Centre “E” and had improperly expanded a specific comparison of an individual crime into an alleged equating of the entire Soviet regime with Nazism.
“Article 13.48 of the Code of Administrative Offences prohibits public equating, but it does not prohibit criticism of individual criminal decisions of the Soviet leadership — decisions that have been recognised as such by the state itself,” Semedlyaev stated.
For nearly an hour, the court listened to the exchange between the defence lawyer and the expert in silence, before giving the floor to Enver Seitmemetov.
“I do not have a computer inside me to erase all of this.”
The former history teacher arrived at the hearing with books and printed articles. While the defence, the expert, and the Centre “E” officer were speaking, he carefully placed coloured bookmarks onto the pages, preparing to quote.
When the court granted Seitmemetov the floor for his closing statement, the pensioner began by recounting the search of his home. He said that he had been living in Bakhchysarai for over 30 years, and that when his neighbours learned of his detention, their reactions varied: some supported him, others were frightened. He believed that the search, conducted by armed officers, was an excessive measure.
“The search that took place at your home was not initiated by us, but by officers of the Federal Security Service. You were presented with a warrant; this was an operational measure undertaken by another agency,” a representative of the Centre for Combating Extremism responded.
Seitmemetov went on to speak about the injustice his people had endured, beginning with his family’s memories of the repressions of the 1930s and 1940s. He focused primarily on the harsh living conditions in the resettled communities of the USSR: the lack of food, clothing, housing, and medical care, as well as the systemic abuses that led to widespread suffering among the Crimean Tatars. His speech was dense with historical detail, reports, and concrete examples of state inaction. He also mentioned the deportations of other Muslim peoples — the Chechens and the Karachays — noting that no one had ever been held accountable for those crimes: “peoples who were simply abandoned.”
Judge Moskalenko tried to interrupt him and steer the discussion back to the specific charge.
“This is about something else entirely, do you understand? What are you trying to convince me of? That this is a tragedy for an entire people? The issue is different: you gave an interview. Didn’t you see that there was a camera in front of you, and that the interview would later be disseminated? Did you give that interview in your kitchen?”
Seitmemetov replied that he wished to finish speaking and stated that he denied the charges. He stressed that his comments had been an expression of his opinion.
“These are memories… — what am I supposed to do, erase them? I do not have a computer inside me to erase all of this. I apologise for my emotional remarks. but when people today try to find fault with something, we react very sensitively. We protest because we are human — we have feelings.”
“Freedom of expression may be restricted by federal law”
The hearing lasted several hours. After listening to the parties, Judge Sergey Moskalenko watched the video containing Enver Seitmemetov’s disputed remarks. He then delivered his decision by reading out the operative part of the ruling. The defence lawyer received the full written judgment several days later.
Elders welcome Enver Seitmemetov outside the courthouse. Photo: Crimean Solidarity
The court rejected both the arguments of the retired history teacher and those of his defence. All motions were dismissed, and the court ruled to fine the pensioner 2,000 rubles, reminding him of his right to appeal the decision. In determining the penalty, the court considered the nature of the offence and Seitmemetov’s age, finding neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.
The court dismissed the defence’s argument that the 90-day statute of limitations for administrative liability had expired, stating that the offence was of a continuing nature and that the limitation period should be calculated from the moment it was discovered, 20 November 2025.
The court also found the defence’s request for a linguistic expert examination to be unfounded, ruling that no specialised knowledge of the Russian language was required in this case.
The magistrate judge characterised the defence’s arguments — that Seitmemetov had not independently published the interview online and therefore lacked the elements of an offence — as an attempt to “evade responsibility.”
Finally, the court rejected the claim that Seitmemetov’s right to freedom of expression had been violated.
“Freedom of expression may be restricted by federal law to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of others, and to ensure national defence and state security,” Judge Moskalenko ruled.
Everyone left the courtroom visibly exhausted: the defence, the Centre “E” officer, the expert, and the judge himself. Outside, Enver Seitmemetov was met by elders from various regions of Crimea, who had learned of his detention from the news and had come specifically to support him. They gathered around him, embracing him warmly.
“If any of you sees an evil deed, try to change it with your own hands — through action,” Seitmemetov addressed them. “If you cannot, then do so with words: by calling for good. And if that is not possible either, at least do not accept the evil into your hearts and pray against it. I pray for and love all of my people. May the Almighty protect them from misfortune. May He free all our imprisoned men. And I thank everyone who came today to support me, as well as those who could not come but prayed for me.”
After that, we all got into our cars and drove home with mixed emotions, but also with relief. After all, the result was a fine, and not administrative detention, which had been a real possibility. After everything that had been heard in the courtroom, it was impossible to imagine Enver-ağa behind bars.
Нашли ошибку в тексте?
Выделите ее и нажмите Ctrl + Enter
Выделите ее и нажмите Ctrl + Enter
