A/HRC/23/34/Add.1 (c) Restitution of cultural and religious property 72. The Law on Transfer to Religious Organizations of Property of Religious Significance Owned by the State or Municipalities of 2010 has generated much public debate as well as criticism from professionals in the field of culture. Restitution to religious communities of religious property nationalized by the Soviet Union started in the 1990s, with tensions emerging regarding matters of maintaining, preserving, safeguarding and using such cultural monuments and artistic objects.25 In particular, concerns were raised about public institutions, such as museums, that would be obliged to vacate their premises and/or transfer some of their collections. 73. While understanding that property being transferred had often suffered damage, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned that, in a number of cases, the transfer of property to religious institutions is accompanied by public funds to restore what, effectively, has become private property. She also stresses that there are ambiguities concerning the ownership status of such transferred property: some interlocutors maintained that actual property rights are granted, while others referred to a grant of free usage only. She would welcome clarification from the authorities on this point. 74. The restitution of movable and immovable cultural heritage is a complex and multifaceted matter requiring careful consideration. The restitution of religious property may be considered a measure fostering the enjoyment of freedom of religion by a given community. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that restitution does not hinder the right of individuals to have access to and enjoy cultural heritage. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the protection of cultural heritage (and therefore access to it) is a legitimate aim that the State may pursue when restricting the right to property. She encourages the authorities to resolve all these issues through open dialogue and debate that includes all stakeholders. B. Ensuring the right to participate freely in cultural and scientific life 1. Right to freedom of artistic expression 75. Artistic life is vibrant in Russian society. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government‟s aims to foster freedom of all forms of creativity, to support the creation and preservation of the best traditions in the arts, to safeguard and advance arts education, to support artists and artists‟ unions, to protect authors‟ rights and to promote Russian arts. 26 76. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the assurances received from the Ministry of Culture that artistic exhibitions, including very provocative ones, may be organized without impediment, for example at the Garage Centre for Contemporary Culture, in Moscow. 77. The Special Rapporteur is nonetheless concerned by reports she received of curators, artists and art activists being prosecuted and convicted of criminal offences, in particular for forms of artistic expression deemed to be critical of political power, the Russian Orthodox Church, or both. Articles 213 and 282 of the Criminal Code, designed to combat “hooliganism” and “incitement of national, racial or religious enmity” respectively, are increasingly used against artists.27 Art activists seem to be under particular pressure, notably with regard to outdoor performances, although some indoor exhibitions have also been prohibited. Some artists and art activists feel harassed, threatened and consider they 25 26 27 See Council of Europe Compendium on Cultural Policies (see footnote 5), pp. 3, 4 and 20. Ibid., pp. 5-6, 13 and 18. See also Nick Sturdee, “Voina: Russia‟s Robin Hoods”, Index on Censorship, 9 November 2011. Available from www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/russias-robin-hoods/. 15