Holocaust Denial: Social Conditionality and Comparative Analysis of Criminal Law Prohibition

From the second half of the 20th century the revisionist movement has spread among scientists, public and political figures. Publicists and scientists are known for criticizing the testimonies of concentration camp prisoners and their executioners, as well as denying the possibility of mass extermination of prisoners in terms of the technical capabilities of gas chambers.

Attempts to reinterpret historical events often border on extremism and pose a threat to national security, leading to a significant deterioration in international relations. At the international level, a number of acts have been adopted indicating that the Holocaust is a fact established by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and calling on states to reject any denial of the Holocaust. International organizations that oppose attempts to rewrite history include the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and UNESCO.

At the national level, responsibility for denying and justifying the Holocaust has been established in a number of states. The first group includes states that are responsible for denying and approving the Holocaust and other crimes committed by the Nazis (Germany, France, Austria, Israel). The second group includes states that equated Nazi crimes in their legislation with crimes of communism (Hungary, Czech Republic, Lithuania). The third group consists of states that prohibit the denial and justification of any genocide (Switzerland, Luxembourg). Some states (for example, the United States) refused to introduce such bans, citing freedom of speech and belief.

In 2014, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced article 354.1 "Rehabilitation of Nazism", which sets forth responsibility for denying the facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal verdict. At the same time, the legislator should not selectively approach the protection of historical events. It would be fair to criminalize the denial of genocide and other international crimes recognized by the international community, regardless of any criteria relating to the perpetrators. 

1. Varchenko IA, Litvyak LG. Ugolovnoe zakonodatelstvo zarubezhnykh stran ob otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya, analogichnye st. 354.1 UK RF «Reabilitatsiya natsizma» (ch. 2) [Criminal legislation of foreign countries on responsibility for crimes similar to article 354.1 of the criminal code "Rehabilitation of Nazism" (part 2)]. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ugolovnoe-zakonodatelstvo-zarubezhnyh-stran-obotvetstvennosti-za-prestupleniya-analogichnye-st-354-1-uk-rf-reabilitatsiya-natsizma/viewer. (In Russ.)

2. Egorova NA. Reabilitatsiya natsizma: ugolovno-pravovoy analiz [Rehabilitation of Nazism: criminal law analysis]. Kriminologicheskiy zhurnal Baykalskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i prava [Criminology Journal of Baikal National University of Economics and Law]. 2015;9(3):494-503. (In Russ.)

3. Levandovskaya MG. Reabilitatsiya natsizma kak prestuplenie [Rehabilitation of Nazism as a crime]. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Кутафafina (MGYuA) [Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)]. 2018;12:155-162. (In Russ.)

4. Rudenko RA. Nyurnbergskiy protsess nad glavnymi voennymi prestupnikami: sbornik materialov: v 7 t. [The Nuremberg trial of the main war criminals: collection of materials: in 7 vols.]. Vol. 7. Moscow; 1961. (In Russ.)

5. Golunskiy SA, Gorshenin KP, Nikitchenko IT, Safonov GN, editors. Nyurnbergskiy protsess: sbornik materialov [The Nuremberg process: collection of materials]. Moscow; 1951. (In Russ.)

6. Ryzhov IV, Borodina MYu. Problema otritsaniya Kholokosta: istoriya, osobennosti i sovremennye tendentsii [The Problem of Holocaust Denial: History, features, and current trends]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo [Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod]. 2015;3:97-102. (In Russ.)