centre for justice innovation problem solving courts

Time to get it right: Enhancing problem-solving practice in the Youth Court

This report details the findings of a research project which was jointly undertaken by the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) and the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation.

The project examined current practice in the youth court, including how the court was meeting the needs of vulnerable young people. Specifically, we were interested in understanding current youth court practice and exploring the potential impact of practices aligned with problem-solving justice – an evidence-based approach  which seeks to hold people accountable and to help them to proactively engage with the court to address the factors driving their offending.

Problem-solving courts: An evidence review

This report from the Centre for Justice Innovation, 'Problem-solving courts: an evidence review', analyses the evidence on whether and why problem-solving courts work. The paper was written to inform development of government policy as well as to help shape practice within pilots in England and Wales.

The paper defines problem-solving courts and then considers the evidence on whether they work, why they work, and the problems with them. Chapters of particular interest to Barnardo's i-HOP members include 2.4 in which the authors consider the evidence around family drug treatment courts, and 3.1, which looks at a problem-solving court model for female offenders. On reviewing evidence from the US in Chapter 2.4, the report concludes that the evidence on family drug treatment courts is good and suggests they can be effective in reducing parental substance misuse and the number of children permanently removed from their families as a result. In Chapter 3.1, the context around female offending is outlined with recognition that the majority of female offenders are mothers.

The importance of trauma-informed practice and the potential for it to be integral to a problem-solving model is discussed. Current practice at three problem-solving courts in the UK is touched on, though sufficient evidence of outcomes is not yet available. Overall, the report concludes that the promising evidence available supports the application of a problem-solving court model to the often complex needs of female offenders. With a focus on reducing reoffending and improving outcomes, and through procedural fairness and a specialist focus on target groups, the report suggests the use of these courts can be effective in the rehabilitation of certain groups of offenders. The above instances in particular have significant implications both for children of female offenders and children of offenders with substance misuse issues.

Read the full report here:

Our Partner

Youth Justice Resource Hub

Problem-Solving Courts: A Guide to Practice in the United Kingdom and Procedural Fairness Toolkit – The centre for Justice Innovation (April 2023)

The Centre for Justice Innovation has published a practice guide regarding problem solving courts.

Description

The Centre for Justice Innovation have published problem-solving courts: a guide to practice in the United Kingdom (April 2023), which aims to provide an overview of problem-solving court practice in the United Kingdom for practitioners and policymakers working in or seeking to develop problem-solving courts. There is a distinct section on for youth court, which showcases a practice case study.  The Centre for Justice Innovation have also shared a short video what are problem-solving courts? which provides an overview of the key principles.

The Centre for Justice Innovation have also published a procedural fairness toolkit (April 2023), which was developed to support court practitioners on ways to improve court users’ perception of fairness of court process and interactions.

Courts, court users and the judicial process

Enhancing problem-solving practice in the youth court.

In partnership with the Centre for Justice Innovation, ICPR is undertaking research on problem-solving practice in the Youth Court of England and Wales. Based in three specific localities, the aims of the project are to identify what kinds of problem-solving practice can best meet the changing needs of court-involved children and young people; to identify how this enhanced practice can be implemented; and to determine how the impact of this enhanced practice could be tested. The research entails interviews of court users and youth justice practitioners , observations of court hearings, and analysis of courts and YOT data, in order to gain an understanding of current practice, opportunities for innovation, and barriers to and facilitators of reform.

Dr Jessica Jacobson ,  Gillian Hunter , Centre for Justice Innovation

Related publications

Hunter, Gill  and  Jacobson, Jessica  (2021) Exploring procedural justice and problem-solving practice in the Youth Court. Discussion Paper. HM Inspectorate of Probation, Canterbury, UK.

Hunter, Gillian  and Ely, C. and Robin-D'Cruz, C. and Whitehead, S. (2020) Time to get it right: enhancing problem-solving practice in the Youth Court . Centre for Justice Innovation, London, UK.

We work with communities and systems to advance equity and cultivate lasting forms of safety.

Meet the People on the Leading Edge of Housing Justice

Housing justice is a through line in the Center for Justice Innovation’s efforts to build safety and racial justice. In our new video, you’ll meet tenants, Center staff, and partners from the community and government working to prevent evictions, respond to tenant needs, and support access to safe, stable, and affordable housing.

Governor Hochul Announces $33 Million Investment in Mental Health Support for People in the Legal System

The investment will support more programs like the Midtown Community Justice Center, which fosters lasting safety by linking people in the legal system to services and care in their communities.

Why Eviction Prevention Is Vital For Justice

As the nationwide shortage of stable, affordable housing has come into sharp relief, an important question is ringing out in cities and neighborhoods across the country: How can we help people stay in the homes they already have?

When Policy Isn’t Enough: Drug Decriminalization Ends in Oregon

Oregon broke with the War on Drugs three years ago, decriminalizing the possession of most illicit drugs. The measure promised instead a "health-based approach." But the state has just ended the short-lived experiment. The law faced stiff headwinds from the start: from fentanyl's arrival to a relentless opposition campaign. But part of what went wrong was a challenge for any legislation: implementation . How do you make a sweeping new approach work on the ground?

Housing Is Justice: Exploring State and Local Innovations

In collaboration with the Housing Solutions Lab at New York University’s Furman Center, this new report explores ways that actors in the justice system and housing agencies can partner to break the cycle of housing insecurity and system involvement. Using a national survey, practitioner interviews, and program assessments, the paper explores the innovative policies and programs and the keys to successful collaborations in this space. 

Why Housing Is Essential to Justice

A note from our Executive Director Courtney Bryan on why we prioritize housing justice.

Areas of Focus

• Rethinking Incarceration
• Engaging Communities
• Aiding Survivors
• Preventing Crime
• Improving Decision-making
• Advancing Fairness
• Strengthening Families

Veterans treatment courts continue to grow

May 2, 2024

By Dimarie Alicea-Lozada

The first veterans treatment court (VTC) was created in Buffalo, New York in January 2008. The number of VTCs has since grown to over 600 in the United States as of 2021 , with much of that expansion taking place since 2016. May is National Treatment Court or Problem-Solving Courts Month , and this year we have focused on several new state and local initiatives addressing the needs of veterans in the justice system.

In 2024 Frederick and Washington District Courts in Maryland launched a VTC which will serve veterans in both counties and connect them with military service member benefits. This is the tenth veterans court and the second regional or multicounty problem-solving court in Maryland. Veterans will be able to resolve criminal offenses and receive treatment that will help them stabilize their lives. According to the Maryland Judiciary , “The goal of the regional veterans treatment court is to reduce recidivism and help connect eligible participants to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, local resources, long-term supportive housing, and other benefits for participants whose service-related disabilities prevent their return to the workforce.” The program will start in mid-2024.

Florida’s Senate proposed nonrecurring funds for a veterans treatment court in Santa Rosa County . Florida already has 32 veterans courts in operation . The appropriation would help start the service in Santa Rosa County and provide services to veterans as they are doing in other Florida counties.

In their 79th podcast of All Things Judicial , the North Carolina Judicial Branch recently focused on the VTC in District 11A. They discussed the court’s process, the issues veterans face when returning to civilian life, and the experiences of Veterans Court Director Zane Campbell, who was a VTC graduate himself. The mission of the VTC is to help veterans involved in the court system due to mental health disorders, trauma, and substance use. The court aims to connect eligible veterans with benefits and treatment earned through military service.

Minnesota’s Third Judicial District VTC is celebrating its fifth year and continues to offer treatment for substance abuse or mental health disorders. The court also helps veterans with transportation for VA appointments, and the program takes 12 to 18 months to complete.

Is your court planning to create a VTC? Email us at [email protected] or call 800-616-6164 and let us know. Follow the National Center for State Courts on Facebook , X , LinkedIn , and Vimeo . For more Trending Topics posts, visit ncsc.org/trendingtopics or subscribe to the LinkedIn newsletter .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Regions and Offices

Questions and Answers with USTP Director Tara Twomey

This article originally appeared in ABI Journal, Vol. XLIII, No. 5, May 2024.

Tara Twomey became director of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees on Feb. 27, 2023. In this article, she answers some questions for the ABI Journal about her career in bankruptcy law and the work of the U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) to safeguard the efficiency and integrity of the bankruptcy system.

Before joining the USTP, you were executive director of the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center and Of Counsel to the National Consumer Law Center. How has that background shaped your perspective now as an advocate not just for consumers, but for all stakeholders in the bankruptcy system?

The bankruptcy system touches all corners of society, from large corporations and mass tort victims to mom-and-pop businesses and individuals who have fallen on hard times. Although I now wear a different hat, I have the same passion about bankruptcy and its promise of relief for financially struggling Americans.

My previous focus was on consumer bankruptcy cases, which constitute just over 98 percent of all cases filed, but I also appreciate the critical role bankruptcy plays for businesses. The Bankruptcy Code’s flexibility, while not unbounded, continues to provide avenues for large corporate reorganizations despite increasingly complex business structures.

Subchapter V has provided a new and beneficial path to financial stability for small companies. Considering everything that the Code touches, it undoubtedly has shaped American society and our economy by reinforcing the concepts that the honest-but-unfortunate debtor should be given a fresh start and that failing businesses should have the opportunity to reorganize into successful operations. For individuals and companies alike, bankruptcy is a powerful engine of economic renewal.

My background also has given me a firm belief that most debtors are honest people who have faced unfortunate challenges and want an opportunity to turn things around. As previously noted, consumer cases make up the vast majority of bankruptcy cases, but we often hear only about the small number of less-than-honest debtors or those who otherwise seek to unfairly manipulate the system. We do not hear as much about the success stories demonstrating that the system works, but there are plenty of those stories to tell.

In addition to debtors, most other stakeholders — including debtors’ attorneys, trustees, creditors and judges — are also committed to a well-functioning bankruptcy system. The USTP has a vested interest in ensuring the integrity of the system for all participants, and that is my chief objective now.

The Department of Justice has placed an emphasis on ensuring access to justice — to make certain that all communities have equal access to the civil and criminal protections of the American legal system. What is the USTP doing to remove barriers to the bankruptcy system specifically, and what other measures is it taking to protect consumer debtors?

The USTP has multiple initiatives to ensure that participants in the bankruptcy system receive all of the relief that the law affords them and to ensure they are able to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s requirements. For example, we learned during the COVID-19 pandemic that the statutory obligations of § 341 can be satisfied in most cases without requiring a debtor to take a day off from work, travel long distances or secure childcare to attend an in-person meeting. After a successful pilot program, we are expanding video § 341 meetings of creditors nationwide for consumer cases, and we expect to complete the expansion this year. The policy is the product of careful and deliberate preparations to ensure that the option for virtual meetings delivers on its promise of added efficiency while preserving the integrity of the bankruptcy system.

More than 50 judicial districts have already made a transition to virtual meetings under the USTP’s procedures, which has saved countless hours and realized the promise of reduced burdens. The hard work and cooperation of bankruptcy courts and clerks, trustees and practitioners have been crucial in moving this project forward. The USTP staff has worked to provide robust training to trustees and practitioners to successfully transition to virtual meetings.

To better understand the experience of debtors from underserved communities and their attorneys in virtual meetings, we also partnered with the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable and the Justice Department’s Office for Access to Justice to conduct a listening session with legal aid representatives from two states. Our outreach confirmed that video § 341 meetings improve attendance and participation by debtors. We found that creditor participation also improved. The feedback about users’ experience will be useful as the USTP works on future improvements. In light of these early successes, the USTP is looking to expand video § 341 meetings to chapter 11 cases in the near future.

Accessibility of information is also essential to fulfilling the promise of a fresh start for consumer debtors and providing equal access to that promise. We have an incredible service offering free telephonic interpretations to help debtors with limited English proficiency participate in their § 341 meetings. We are pleased that these translation services remain in high demand as we transition to offering virtual meetings nationwide. We provided nearly 10,000 free interpretation sessions in fiscal year 2023 alone. On our website (justice.gov/ust), we posted a Bankruptcy Information Sheet, available in 17 languages, to help debtors understand the bankruptcy process. More broadly, we are redesigning the USTP website to make it easier to find meaningful information about bankruptcy, starting with the section tailored toward consumers.

In addition, the USTP has taken several steps to prevent chapter 13 debtors who complete their plan payments from losing out on their discharge for failing to fulfill the debtor-education requirement. These steps include measures intended to reinforce debtors’ awareness, such as interviewing stakeholders to discuss the barriers they perceive to debtor education and advising debtor-education providers to provide clear instructions about the requirement.

We are being proactive, but we have also been responsive when we have realized errors. I want to highlight the efforts of our Memphis, Tenn., field office, which identified 27 closed chapter 13 cases in which the debtors did not receive discharges even though they had completed their plans and filed debtor-education certificates. The office filed motions to reopen all 27 cases, and the debtors ultimately received their discharges.

What do you see as other opportunities for the USTP to help improve the system?

The USTP has several projects underway to make the system better. For example, we intend to build on the success of subchapter V by developing solutions for certain practical and operational issues that have arisen since it went into effect in 2020. We are pleased to be participating in ABI’s Subchapter V Task Force (subvtaskforce.abi.org), which is developing potential statutory changes to recommend to Congress, as well as best practices based on input from stakeholders such as judges, subchapter V trustees and debtors’ attorneys. The USTP is also evaluating ways to strengthen the recruitment and retention of qualified trustees and reinforce trustee performance management. These are just some of the efforts we are making to sustain the momentum and support the development of subchapter V.

Drawing on lessons learned, we also will bolster USTP policies and practices designed to safeguard bankruptcy estate funds held by trustees and debtors in possession in accounts at authorized depository institutions. The USTP’s policies and practices worked as intended during the banking turmoil that unfolded last year. All bankruptcy estate funds on deposit at failed banks were protected through the Bankruptcy Code’s and the USTP’s collateralization requirements, except in cases where a court had waived them.

For background, banks become authorized depositories by executing a uniform depository agreement (UDA) with the U.S. Trustee. Among other requirements, the UDA provides that banks will comply with the Bankruptcy Code and post a bond in favor of the U.S. or alternatively deposit securities with the Federal Reserve to protect deposits above the standard maximum deposit insurance amount covered from a risk of loss by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

To meet these goals, we are modernizing the UDA to create a single form for all authorized depositories. The form was last updated in 2013, and there have been several changes since then to the ways that the USTP, U.S. Department of the Treasury and financial institutions conduct business. The new UDA form will reflect advances in technology used by the USTP, trustees and financial institutions, and it will accommodate such changes as the reorganization of the Treasury, the methods now used for collateralizing deposits and changes in applicable laws and regulations.

A well-functioning bankruptcy system also requires a stable corps of talented private trustees. Ensuring that these trustees — whether serving as trustees in chapter 7, chapter 13 or subchapter V of chapter 11 — are on solid financial footing is key. Although subchapter V cases have been on the rise since 2020, historic lows in other case filings during the COVID-19 pandemic have had an impact on both chapter 7 compensation and chapter 13 trust operations.

As filings increase, we anticipate that the chapter 13 pipeline will gradually improve and bring greater stability to those operations. We also expect that the USTP’s statutory fee revenue will recover so that we can resume funding additional payments to chapter 7 trustees under § 330 (e). In addition, we continue to explore options within statutory bounds to ensure that subchapter V trustees are paid for their important work.

What first sparked your interest in bankruptcy? What can the bankruptcy community do to draw new attorneys to bankruptcy practice?

Like many in the bankruptcy profession, I would say that bankruptcy found me. I started my legal career doing community economic development and a fair amount of commercial real estate work for community organizations. As the foreclosures began to roll in, I found myself thrust into representing clients in chapter 13. I saw that bankruptcy was a powerful tool that could be used to help debtors right their financial circumstances and seek a fresh start.

Alas, how to draw new attorneys to the practice is a good question. In any profession, it is important to have a strong pipeline. We are seeing a large number of bankruptcy professionals retire, particularly on the consumer side. Generally, we know that most debtors fare better in bankruptcy when they are represented by good counsel.

Like others in the bankruptcy community, it is important for the USTP to take part in building the next generation. We have eight attorneys currently set to join the USTP this fall through the Department of Justice Honors Program, and we are increasing both legal and non-legal internship opportunities across the country. The USTP is also committed to fostering a workforce that reflects America’s rich diversity and a range of personal and professional backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. To accomplish this, the USTP partners with multiple affinity groups to advertise attorney and non-attorney jobs and internships. Our outreach efforts also include collaborating with the Bankruptcy Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility Consortium, which aims to recruit diverse candidates for the bankruptcy bench and bar by promoting careers in bankruptcy law.

How would you describe your leadership style?

I would probably describe it as a mix of styles depending on what the circumstances warrant, but I generally favor participative leadership. That means seeking input, listening carefully, encouraging diverse perspectives and ideas, and encouraging innovation and creative problem-solving.

What have you learned that you wish you had known before you entered government service?

Acronyms! There are lots of acronyms, and I still find myself looking them up from time to time, but more seriously, I probably undervalued the importance of working across government to solve problems. Government organizations often operate vertically within their subject-matter expertise, but many issues — from budget and personnel to data and cybersecurity — have better outcomes when we work collaboratively across agency lines.

Related Content

This article originally appeared in the American Bankruptcy Trustee Journal (Volume 39, Issue 04).

This article originally appeared in ABI Journal , Vol. XLIII, No. 1, January 2024.

This article originally appeared in the  American Bankruptcy Trustee Journal  (Winter 2023).

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Russian Court Orders Prominent Human Rights Group to Shut

The Supreme Court ruled that Memorial International, which chronicled political repression in Russia, must be liquidated.

By Ivan Nechepurenko and Andrew E. Kramer

MOSCOW — Russia’s Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the nation’s most prominent human rights organization must close, signaling President Vladimir V. Putin’s longstanding determination to control the narrative of some of the most painful and repressive chapters of Russian history.

The court ordered the liquidation of Memorial International, which chronicled the harrowing persecutions in the infamous Stalin-era labor camps in an effort to preserve the memory of its victims. The group, founded by the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov and other dissidents more than three decades ago, became a symbol of the country’s emerging democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The decision comes after a year of broad crackdown on opposition in Russia as the Kremlin moved aggressively to stifle dissent — in the news media, in religious groups, on social networks and especially among activists and political opponents, hundreds of whom have been harassed, jailed or forced into exile.

Shutting down Memorial is also another step in Mr. Putin’s effort to recast Russia’s legacy as a series of glorious accomplishments and soften the image of the often-brutal Soviet regime. While the state opened a comprehensive Gulag history museum in Moscow and Mr. Putin laid flowers at a new monument to the victims of Soviet repression, the increasingly emboldened Kremlin has moved aggressively to remove alternative interpretations of Russian history by organizations it does not control.

In particular Mr. Putin is eager to convince Russians that their country is surrounded by enemies who wish to oversee its demise, a tack he has taken recently in demanding that NATO guarantee it will not expand farther eastward toward Russia. As such, the Kremlin wants the Russian public to focus on foreign foes instead of crimes committed by homegrown dictators.

In recent years, Mr. Putin has shown a keen interest in shaping interpretation of Russia’s history, publishing his views in lengthy articles about the Soviet Union’s key contribution to the victory over Nazism and “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” His viewpoint includes a renunciation of the democratic steps taken in the 1990s, which included reforms, self-criticism and social and economic upheaval.

The hearing drew dozens of protesters outside the courthouse, and afterward families of those affected by Stalins’ repressions and opposition figures expressed outrage, pointing to the deepening level of repression under Mr. Putin.

Ilya Miklashevsky, 65, whose father and grandfather were both imprisoned in the gulag, said Memorial’s closure represents “a new step downward,” adding, “the country is sleepily moving downhill.”

Sergei Mitrokhin, a Russian opposition politician, said that Memorial was “the last barrier on the way to complete Stalinization of the society and state.”

“What we have now is still lite Stalinism,” he said, speaking on Ekho Moskvy, a radio station. “I am afraid it can turn way worse. It is a tragedy for our country.”

Memorial International oversees an archive of victims of Soviet persecution, mostly in the era of the gulags, the forced labor camps where Russians were imprisoned in harsh, debilitating conditions. Its database contains more than three million names — no more than a quarter of all victims, according to the organization’s estimates.

Memorial’s lawyers have dismissed all of the accusations against the group as unfounded and called its persecution “politically motivated.” In a statement , Memorial said that its members were intent on “finding legal ways” to continue their work.

In Washington, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the United States condemned the decision to close Memorial, which he called “one of Russia’s oldest and most respected historical and human rights organizations.”

Jan Z. Raczynski, chairman of the board of Memorial International, said that the group intended to appeal the ruling and that it would be allowed to operate for at least a month while the appeal was pending. It is unclear what will happen to Memorial’s archive and other physical items, including the ones it displays in a subterranean Moscow museum.

In a separate hearing on Wednesday, the Moscow City Court will rule on whether to shut down Memorial’s Human Rights Center, which compiles a list of current political prisoners in Russia. The center is accused of “justifying terrorist activities” by including members of banned religious organizations on the list.

The list includes Aleksei A. Navalny, the imprisoned Russian opposition leader, who was poisoned in a clandestine operation widely believed to have been organized by the Russian special services. In Siberia on Tuesday, the authorities raided the homes of two regional heads of Mr. Navalny’s political movement, branded as “extremist” by a Russian court in June.

Mr. Raczynski said that the Russian authorities were seeking to whitewash Soviet history, and that the prosecutor had directly addressed historical issues in arguments before the Supreme Court, though the case was ostensibly about violation of the foreign agent law.

The legal pressure, he said, was intended to shut both Memorial’s historical research into Soviet repressions and current human rights advocacy. The two branches of the group’s work are related, he said, and both are now “seen as undermining the authority of the government.”

Criticism of Soviet policies, he said, runs counter to the “current government’s propagandistic concept that, ‘our government was always good.’”

“There’s an old, banal formula that whoever doesn’t know the past is doomed to repeat it,” Mr. Raczynski said. “The situation of the past decade shows we are moving in that direction.”

In another signal of the state’s efforts to block Memorial, a Russian court on Monday extended the term of Yuri Dmitriev, a historian who chaired the group’s regional office in Karelia, to 15 years from 13. Mr. Dmitriev, who discovered mass graves resulting from Stalin’s brutalities, was convicted of sexually abusing his adopted daughter, a charge he denied.

The judge’s ruling on Tuesday cited what it said were repeated violations of the foreign agents law. Passed in 2012, the measure has been criticized by the country’s opposition as a vehicle intended by the Russian state to stifle all dissent. It orders all organizations that receive foreign funding and engage in loosely defined political activity to label themselves as “foreign agents,” a designation that carries the stigma of being on the payroll of foreign governments.

The law imposes onerous requirements on those designated, including extensive financial disclosures. Memorial’s leaders say they have made every effort to comply with the requirements even though they regard the law as unconstitutional.

Yelena Zhemkova, Memorial’s executive director, said that mistakes are possible in its gargantuan task of keeping a registry of victims, but that they are “always corrected.”

“What Memorial does represents 33 years of hard work of very many people,” Ms. Zhemkova told the court. “We work for the benefit of our people and our country.”

During Tuesday’s hearing, Aleksei Zhafyarov, the prosecutor, said Memorial only “speculated on the topic of political repressions” but that in reality it tried to portray the Soviet Union as “a terrorist state” and aimed to “rehabilitate Nazi criminals.”

Mr. Zhafyarov’s statements echoed earlier comments by Mr. Putin, who called Memorial “one of the most reputable organizations” during a meeting with his human rights council this month, but also accused it of glorifying Holocaust perpetrators.

Mr. Raczynski, the chairman of Memorial’s board, said the state’s arguments were specious.

“The general prosecutor said we try to portray the Soviet Union as a terrorist organization,” he said. “Well, we don’t have to try. The Soviet Union was a terrorist organization. In no other country were so many citizens imprisoned under false political accusations.”

Ivan Nechepurenko has been a reporter with the Moscow bureau since 2015, covering politics, economics, sports, and culture in Russia and the former Soviet republics. He was born and raised in St. Petersburg, Russia. More about Ivan Nechepurenko

Andrew E. Kramer is a reporter based in the Moscow bureau. He was part of a team that won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for a series on Russia’s covert projection of power. More about Andrew E. Kramer

• فارسى
• Français
• Español
• عربي

International Federation for Human Rights

Wagner in syria: moscow court upholds decision in murder case, obstructing accountability.

--> en es