As of 2012, the Russian State Duma passed a string of repressive laws on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), surveillance, and high treason. Under this “new authoritarian” regime, a growing number of Russians are investigated by the security services or put on trial for high treason. NGOs face selective prosecution and surprise inspections. While we know how lawyers use legal mobilization in democratic regimes where they can expect courts to be fair, legal mobilization remains understudied in regimes moving toward authoritarianism, where authorities pass repressive laws but enforce them erratically. Drawing on interviews with Russian lawyers, this article examines how lawyers represent two victim groups of state coercion: Russians under investigation for treason and prosecuted human rights NGOs. By examining how lawyers make strategic choices while coping with unfair courts, the random enforcement of laws, and shrinking resources, this article argues that state coercion does not deter lawyers from legal mobilization at domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Instead, repressive laws push lawyers to reinvent their everyday practices to counter repressive legislation and conviction bias in the criminal justice system.

Between 2005 and 2013, the Russian State Duma passed legislation restricting the activity of human rights defenders (HRDs). Although these measures complicate their work, this study contends that Russian HRDs creatively manage constraints. Through an interview study, this article contributes to the literature on human rights defence in dangerous circumstances by identifying the coping practices of two groups of HRDs: opposition youth activists in Moscow and human rights lawyers in the Northern Caucasus. Here, we argue that those activists at high risk often reinvent their tactics to counter curtailing legislation, experiment with the boundaries of police violence and manage the fear of fellow activists.

Russian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) increasingly pursue domestic change by litigating before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Russian government aims to decrease the amount of these applications and curtail the activities of these NGOs. In Russia, where legalism is often performed but sparsely delivered, NGOs engage into advocacy to supplement their international litigation. Advocating for domestic policy changes has, however, become potentially dangerous for NGOs under new curtailing legislation. Through interviews with Russian human rights practitioners, this article analyzes how two NGOs -the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and the Committee against Torture -work in between their belief that law can effect into change and the necessity to supplement their litigation with other strategies. In particular, it analyzes the interactions between the state and the NGOs by examining, first, how NGOs mobilize claims before the Court as leverage in disputes, and second, how a restrictive environment affects the NGOs' litigation.

No abstract