Article 6.21.1 Promotion of paedophilia

1. Promotion of paedophilia through the dissemination of information designed to justify and/or justify paedophilia, or to make paedophilia attractive, or to impose information on paedophilia of interest in paedophilia, except in the cases provided for in article 6.20 of the present Code, if such acts do not give rise to a criminal offence, is punishable by law. No administrative fine for citizens of between 200,000 and 400 thousand rubles; for officials of between 400 and 800 thousand rubles; for legal persons of one millilite 2. Actions under article 1 committed with the use of funds in the use of funds Assault information and (or) information and telecommunications networks (including the Internet), if these acts do not contain evidence of a criminal offence, are subject to the imposition of administrative penalties. A fine of between four hundred thousand and eight hundred thousand rubles for citizens; eight hundred thousand and two million rubles for officials; and four million to ten metres for legal entities. 3. Acts provided for in article 1 committed by a foreign national or a person without If these acts do not constitute a criminal offence, they shall be liable to an administrative fine of between 200,000 and 400 000 rubles with administrative penalties. 4. Actions to be taken by the Russian Federation for a period of up to 15 days with administrative removal from the territory of the Russian Federation. 1. Article committed by a foreign national or stateless person using the media and (or) information and telecommunications networks (including the Internet) ), if these acts do not show evidence of a criminal offence, the administrative penalty shall be between four hundred thousand and eight hundred thousand rubles with administrative expulsion. The Committee notes that the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication are consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence that the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication are consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence.