servicenow assignment group reference qualifier

How search works:

• Punctuation and capital letters are ignored.
• Special characters like underscores (_) are removed.
• Known synonyms are applied.
• The most relevant topics (based on weighting and matching to search terms) are listed first in search results.

Topics are ranked in search results by how closely they match your search terms

• A match on the entire phrase you typed.
• A match on part of the phrase you typed.
• A match on ALL of the terms in the phrase you typed.
• A match on ANY of the terms in the phrase you typed.

Note: Matches in titles are always highly ranked.

Reference qualifiers

• Save As PDF Selected topic Topic & subtopics All topics in contents
• Share this page

Use reference qualifiers to create filters that restrict the data that is returned for a reference field.

A reference field stores a link (reference) to a field on another table, making the records/fields in the referenced table available to the form containing the reference field.

For example, the Assigned to field on the Incident table is a reference to the User [sys_user] table. By default, all values for the field that is being referenced appear in the reference lookup and can be directly accessed through the reference field (type ahead). Expanding on the prior example, if a reference qualifier is not defined, all users in the User table appear in the reference lookup. Including those users that are inactive. Sometimes, this might be the desired functionality. In other cases however, only a subset of the available values may be desired. In this case, create a reference qualifier to filter the available data so that only the desired values are returned and made available to the form. Such as only the active users or users that have a specific role. Reference qualifiers are robust and can consist of simple AND/OR conditions, inline JavaScript, or complex script include .

You can define a reference qualifier using one of the following methods.

Simple reference qualifier

Simple reference qualifiers use AND/OR statements (conditions) to create simple filters. Use simple reference qualifiers when filtering on conditions such as whether a company is active, a user has a specific role, and/or a caller is in a specific time zone. Simple reference qualifiers can have a maximum of 13 reference qualifier conditions. For additional information on how to use condition builders, see Condition builder .

Dynamic reference qualifiers

Dynamic reference qualifiers enable you to use a Create a dynamic filter option to run a query against a reference field to filter the returned data set. Dynamic filter options are stored filters that can contain Encoded query strings , JavaScript, or script includes, and can be used in multiple dynamic reference qualifiers. Changes made to a dynamic filter option automatically apply to all reference qualifiers that use the same dynamic filter option. Use this type of reference qualifier when you want to use the same filter on multiple forms or to provide filter functionality to "non-code savvy" implementers.

The base instance provides several OOB dynamic filter options. If a dynamic filter option that meets your needs does not exist, you can create a new dynamic filter option that is specific to your requirements. An example of an OOB dynamic filter option is the reference qualifier on the Model ID field on a configuration item form, such as the Computer form. The reference qualifier calls the CI Model Qualifier dynamic filter option, which in turn calls the ModelAndCategoryFilters script include. This script include filters the data set based on the class of the CI. The only options for the model ID are options that belong to the same class as the current CI. For example, only CIs that belong to the Computer class are available in the Model ID field on the Computer form.

Advanced reference qualifier

Related lists and reference qualifiers

Using javascript current syntax in reference qualifiers.

current is a JavaScript object that contains the fields and field values of the active (current) record. For forms, this is the record that is displayed (loaded) in the form. Within advanced and dynamic reference qualifiers, you can use the JavaScript current object to define filters such as javascript:"company=" + current.company .

This JavaScript, within a reference qualifier, only returns the records from the referenced table that are equal to the company field value of the current record. So, if the value that appears in the Company field is Acme, the JavaScript returns all reference field records whose company value is equal to Acme (company="Acme"). If you then bring up a record whose company value is "ViewRite", the JavaScript resolves to company="ViewRite."

All fields within the currently loaded form (tables) are available for use with the current object. Use dot-walking to access values in a table, including the referenced table. For example, on the Incident form, the Assigned To field references the User table. To access the email address of the user, use the following syntax: javascript:"emailAddress=" + current.assigned_to.email .

On this page

Last updated: February 3, 2022

Tags: San Diego , Platform Field Administration

Learning ServiceNow by Tim Woodruff

Get full access to Learning ServiceNow and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

Assigned to and Assignment group

The Assigned to [assigned_to] field is a reference  field type that points to the Users [sys_user] table. This field is generally used to designate a user to work on, or be responsible for the task. By default, this field has a reference qualifier (role=itil) set on its dictionary record that prevents any non-itil user from being assigned to a task. You can override this reference qualifier on tables that extend task though, as the Project Task and Service Order tables do, if you have the relevant plugins installed.

The Assignment group [assignment_group] field serves pretty much the same purpose. The reason for having both, is that a workflow might automatically assign a certain type of task ticket to a group, ...

Get Learning ServiceNow now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Group Configuration Items for Easier Management in ServiceNow

S everal years ago, I worked on a large ServiceNow implementation of change management. One of the key requirements on that project was to allow for the logical grouping of CIs. The primary reason for this grouping was to facilitate referencing and adding/removing these common CIs when they were all affected. This is fairly common when you’ve got a group of CIs that need the same routine maintenance or patching for example. You can imagine if you had to do this constantly for 100 different CIs how much of a pain that could become :). This capability doesn’t exist in ServiceNow and it’s actually more complex to implement than you would think but I’ve had a solution for it for quite some time.

In response to a few questions on the ServiceNow community I’ve decided to formalize this solution in an update set and publish it here on ServiceNow Guru. It allows for much simpler management and usage of these grouped CIs and can be found here in the ‘Configuration Item Groups’ update set. This has also been incorporated along with several hundred additional improvements in the Crossfuze Change Management turnkey solution . If you like this solution and are looking into change management, I highly recommend taking a look and requesting a demo !

Administration of this solution is pretty simple. Users with the ‘ecmdb_admin’ role have the ability to manage CI groups (stored in the ‘cmdb_ci_group’ table and accessed via the ‘Configuration -> Groups’ module in the left nav). The ‘itil’ role has permission to only to view the CI groups by default but this security could be opened up using the standard ACLs in the system.

The CI group memberships are stored in a custom many-to-many table named ‘CI Group Member [u_cmdb_ci_grmember]’. These records are typically accessed via the related list on their parent group record in the CMDB.

To use the groups, simply add any CI group record as an Affected CI to any task. The ‘Add/Remove CI Group Members’ business rule on the ‘Affected CI [task_ci]’ table handles the rest!

Related Links:

• Download: Configuration Item Groups
• Supporting Documentation: Installing an update set on your instance

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the author: mark stanger.

Related Posts

Ci ui macro actions for the affected cis list, track affected cis in one place, extending the cmdb, walking the servicenow cmdb relationship tree.

That is very useful. I came across this through looking for something else in connection with CMDB. We use CMDB to store details of what is configured at client sites, and we have a lot of things in cmdb_ci. We have a “related CI” link which is a ref to cmdb_ci on our incident form, but when a user clicks the magnifying glass, it takes a long time to load and is hard to search. We’d like to replace that so the user can pick only from items related to the Company referenced on the New Incident form, and also pre-filter by a limited group of CI types. Can you suggest the best way of doing this? Essentially to modify the CI selection dialog so the query that populates it is more specific.

Many thanks

Thanks Simon. In order to filter items in any reference field, you need to use a reference qualifier. You can read more about this on the ServiceNow wiki. As for your specific reference qualifier, it might look something like this…filtering with a dependency on the ‘company’ field and also filtering for specific types.

javascript:’company=’ + current.company + ‘^sys_class_name=cmdb_ci_server’

I am new to this, but wondering what is the way to add the CIs to the Groups? Concerned if the organization has large number of CIs.

Sorry for the dumb question.

No problem Corey. You can add CIs to groups by opening up the CI group record (navigate to ‘Configuration -> Groups’ in your left nav) and then using the ‘Edit’ button on the ‘Configuration items’ related list to add any CIs you need.

Hi, I really liked this functionality but when I loaded it in my other Configuration Group items lost the tabs for Changes, Incidents and Problems that were linked to them – Is there anyway to not lose that information but still use this update set?

Sure. When you load the remote update set simply remove the form section/form layout updates before committing them to your instance.

Hi there Mark – I’ve stumbled on this update set I don’t know how many times now and it seems to be more and more appealing everytime I read over this page. Seems immensely beneficial for creating patching groups for situations like PRD and sub-PRD environments, but also possibly application groups, clusters, etc. Does this solution of yours have the ability to be applied with a single CI in multiple groupings? One CI could obviously be a server within DEV, as well as a part of a single application group, and a SQL cluster that we may want to group together all at the same time.

Also, is this available for Helsinki?

Thanks Jordan! This works great on Helsinki and also allows for CIs to be included in as many groups as you want. You may also be interested in the Crossfuze CMDB turnkey. It includes an enhanced version of this capability that allows for the definition of CI groups based on dynamic filters so that you don’t have to manage the group membership for each individual CI. Here’s a link if you’d like to set up some time to discuss or do a demo. You can ask to speak with me directly if you’d like.

http://go.crossfuze.com/turnkeyspromotion

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Sign me up for the mailing list!

ServiceNow Advanced Reference Qualifier | How to use a Script Include in a reference qualifier

What is a ServiceNow Reference Qualifier and what are the different types we can use? Here we use a Service Catalog variable field to focus in on advanced reference qualifiers in ServiceNow. We specifically look at how we can call a server side script include in the qualifier itself to do some GlideRecord query magic and return a list of sys id’s. Using reference qualifiers allows us to refine the list of records we have selectable in a reference field, thus ‘qualifying’ the data on the referenced table.

https://docs.servicenow.com/en-US/bundle/tokyo-platform-administration/page/script/server-scripting/concept/c_ReferenceQualifiers.html

https://www.servicenow.com/community/developer-forum/dynamic-advanced-reference-qualifier-examples/m-p/1386576

#servicenerd #servicenow #servicenowdeveloper

Tags: abel tuter advanced reference qualifier GlideRecord reference field reference qualifier script include service catalog servicenerd servicenow admin servicenow demo servicenow tutorial sysid in variable variable set

You may also like...

ServiceNow Guided Tour for a Catalog Item | Guided Tour Designer for Service Portal

ServiceNow Client Script Messages | getMessage | Language Translation

ServiceNow Flow Designer: Creating a Catalog Item Flow

• Next story What is ChatGPT and Can We Use it for ServiceNow
• Previous story RiseUp with ServiceNow | ServiceNow Training and much much more..

All Videos / New Features / Tips & Tricks

AI in ServiceNow with Justin Meadows | What does it mean?

February 27, 2023

New Features / Tips & Tricks

What is ChatGPT and Can We Use it for ServiceNow

December 18, 2022

• Recent Posts
• Popular Posts
• Recent Comments

All Videos / Flow Designer

“Do the Following Until” Flow Logic in ServiceNow Flow Designer

September 1, 2023

Exploring Dynamic Flow and Get Flow Output Logic in ServiceNow Flow Designer!

July 24, 2023

All Videos / Flow Designer / Tips & Tricks

Flow Designer Error Handling ServiceNow | How to…

July 3, 2023

ServiceNow Advanced Reference Qualifier | How to filter the Assignment group based on Assigned To

June 11, 2023

ServiceNow GlideAggregate Count | Is it better than GlideRecord getRowCount()

April 24, 2023

Service Catalog / Tips & Tricks

ServiceNow: How to embed hyperlinks in work notes | clickable links

October 30, 2022

Integrations

ServiceNow Inbound REST API | Import Set API

September 12, 2022

New Features / Shorts

ServiceNow San Diego Polaris | ServiceNow Next Experience UI #SanDiego #Polaris #Shorts

February 7, 2022

Flow Designer

ServiceNow Flow Template Builder | Create a template using Flow Template Builder

October 6, 2022

• artificial intelligence business rule client script flow Flow designer Flow designer development flow designer for service catalog flow designer servicenow flow designer servicenow orlando flow designer servicenow training flow design tutorial g form glideajax GlideRecord integration hub onload script include service catalog service catalog in servicenow service catalogue servicenerd servicenow servicenow admin servicenow administrator training servicenow community servicenow demo servicenow developer servicenow developer training servicenow flow servicenow flow designer servicenow flow designer approval servicenow flow logic servicenow glideajax example ServiceNow how to servicenow integration servicenow microsoft teams servicenow new features ServiceNow Next Experience ServiceNow Polaris servicenow reference field ServiceNow San Diego servicenow shorts servicenow training servicenow tutorial subflow

Jump to content

• Recognition
• Directories
• Campus Services
• Financial Management
• Learn and Grow
• Manager Toolkit
• Staff Resources
• Technology at Yale
• University Policies, Procedures, Forms, and Guides
• Office of Research Administration
• Office of Sponsored Projects
• Human Research Protection Program
• Animal Research Support
• Conflict of Interest Office
• Export Controls
• Office of Research Compliance
• Faculty Research Management Services
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Public Safety

Change to how requests to access to ServiceNow assignment groups are managed

April 14, 2022

In ServiceNow, groups control access to the ServiceNow system and individual assignment groups or teams. Members of these assignment groups are responsible for processing tickets assigned to that team. You can use our Group Management form to submit requests for changes to group membership. This form was routing approval requests to the ServiceNow Development and Support team. Beginning on Friday, April 22, the form will send approval requests to the respective group manager and queue managers, thereby aligning the approvals with individuals better able to make access decisions.

We recommend that all Service Offering Managers validate their group and queue managers before Thursday, April 21 , using the instructions in the Viewing ServiceNow Group Membership knowledge article . To change the individual designated as an assignment group’s manager, please contact the ServiceNow team . Please use the ServiceNow Group Management Request Form to make changes to the assignment group’s queue manager or members.

• Integrations
• Learning Center

MoSCoW Prioritization

What is moscow prioritization.

MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. 

  The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.”

What is the History of the MoSCoW Method?

Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle. He designed the framework to help his team prioritize tasks during development work on product releases.

You can find a detailed account of using MoSCoW prioritization in the Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook . But because MoSCoW can prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project, teams have adapted the method for a broad range of uses.

How Does MoSCoW Prioritization Work?

Before running a MoSCoW analysis, a few things need to happen. First, key stakeholders and the product team need to get aligned on objectives and prioritization factors. Then, all participants must agree on which initiatives to prioritize.

At this point, your team should also discuss how they will settle any disagreements in prioritization. If you can establish how to resolve disputes before they come up, you can help prevent those disagreements from holding up progress.

Finally, you’ll also want to reach a consensus on what percentage of resources you’d like to allocate to each category.

With the groundwork complete, you may begin determining which category is most appropriate for each initiative. But, first, let’s further break down each category in the MoSCoW method.

Start prioritizing your roadmap

Moscow prioritization categories.

1. Must-have initiatives

As the name suggests, this category consists of initiatives that are “musts” for your team. They represent non-negotiable needs for the project, product, or release in question. For example, if you’re releasing a healthcare application, a must-have initiative may be security functionalities that help maintain compliance.

The “must-have” category requires the team to complete a mandatory task. If you’re unsure about whether something belongs in this category, ask yourself the following.

If the product won’t work without an initiative, or the release becomes useless without it, the initiative is most likely a “must-have.”

2. Should-have initiatives

Should-have initiatives are just a step below must-haves. They are essential to the product, project, or release, but they are not vital. If left out, the product or project still functions. However, the initiatives may add significant value.

“Should-have” initiatives are different from “must-have” initiatives in that they can get scheduled for a future release without impacting the current one. For example, performance improvements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality may be “should-have” initiatives. Without them, the product still works.

3. Could-have initiatives

Another way of describing “could-have” initiatives is nice-to-haves. “Could-have” initiatives are not necessary to the core function of the product. However, compared with “should-have” initiatives, they have a much smaller impact on the outcome if left out.

So, initiatives placed in the “could-have” category are often the first to be deprioritized if a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category ends up larger than expected.

4. Will not have (this time)

One benefit of the MoSCoW method is that it places several initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category can manage expectations about what the team will not include in a specific release (or another timeframe you’re prioritizing).

Placing initiatives in the “will-not-have” category is one way to help prevent scope creep . If initiatives are in this category, the team knows they are not a priority for this specific time frame. 

Some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be prioritized in the future, while others are not likely to happen. Some teams decide to differentiate between those by creating a subcategory within this group.

How Can Development Teams Use MoSCoW?

  Although Dai Clegg developed the approach to help prioritize tasks around his team’s limited time, the MoSCoW method also works when a development team faces limitations other than time. For example: 

Prioritize based on budgetary constraints.

What if a development team’s limiting factor is not a deadline but a tight budget imposed by the company? Working with the product managers, the team can use MoSCoW first to decide on the initiatives that represent must-haves and the should-haves. Then, using the development department’s budget as the guide, the team can figure out which items they can complete. 

Prioritize based on the team’s skillsets.

A cross-functional product team might also find itself constrained by the experience and expertise of its developers. If the product roadmap calls for functionality the team does not have the skills to build, this limiting factor will play into scoring those items in their MoSCoW analysis.

Prioritize based on competing needs at the company.

Cross-functional teams can also find themselves constrained by other company priorities. The team wants to make progress on a new product release, but the executive staff has created tight deadlines for further releases in the same timeframe. In this case, the team can use MoSCoW to determine which aspects of their desired release represent must-haves and temporarily backlog everything else.

What Are the Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritization?

  Although many product and development teams have prioritized MoSCoW, the approach has potential pitfalls. Here are a few examples.

1. An inconsistent scoring process can lead to tasks placed in the wrong categories.

  One common criticism against MoSCoW is that it does not include an objective methodology for ranking initiatives against each other. Your team will need to bring this methodology to your analysis. The MoSCoW approach works only to ensure that your team applies a consistent scoring system for all initiatives.

Pro tip: One proven method is weighted scoring, where your team measures each initiative on your backlog against a standard set of cost and benefit criteria. You can use the weighted scoring approach in ProductPlan’s roadmap app .

2. Not including all relevant stakeholders can lead to items placed in the wrong categories.

To know which of your team’s initiatives represent must-haves for your product and which are merely should-haves, you will need as much context as possible.

For example, you might need someone from your sales team to let you know how important (or unimportant) prospective buyers view a proposed new feature.

One pitfall of the MoSCoW method is that you could make poor decisions about where to slot each initiative unless your team receives input from all relevant stakeholders. 

3. Team bias for (or against) initiatives can undermine MoSCoW’s effectiveness.

Because MoSCoW does not include an objective scoring method, your team members can fall victim to their own opinions about certain initiatives. 

One risk of using MoSCoW prioritization is that a team can mistakenly think MoSCoW itself represents an objective way of measuring the items on their list. They discuss an initiative, agree that it is a “should have,” and move on to the next.

But your team will also need an objective and consistent framework for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to minimize your team’s biases in favor of items or against them.

When Do You Use the MoSCoW Method for Prioritization?

MoSCoW prioritization is effective for teams that want to include representatives from the whole organization in their process. You can capture a broader perspective by involving participants from various functional departments.

Another reason you may want to use MoSCoW prioritization is it allows your team to determine how much effort goes into each category. Therefore, you can ensure you’re delivering a good variety of initiatives in each release.

What Are Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritization?

If you’re considering giving MoSCoW prioritization a try, here are a few steps to keep in mind. Incorporating these into your process will help your team gain more value from the MoSCoW method.

1. Choose an objective ranking or scoring system.

Remember, MoSCoW helps your team group items into the appropriate buckets—from must-have items down to your longer-term wish list. But MoSCoW itself doesn’t help you determine which item belongs in which category.

You will need a separate ranking methodology. You can choose from many, such as:

• Weighted scoring
• Value vs. complexity
• Buy-a-feature
• Opportunity scoring

For help finding the best scoring methodology for your team, check out ProductPlan’s article: 7 strategies to choose the best features for your product .

2. Seek input from all key stakeholders.

To make sure you’re placing each initiative into the right bucket—must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have—your team needs context. 

At the beginning of your MoSCoW method, your team should consider which stakeholders can provide valuable context and insights. Sales? Customer success? The executive staff? Product managers in another area of your business? Include them in your initiative scoring process if you think they can help you see opportunities or threats your team might miss. 

3. Share your MoSCoW process across your organization.

MoSCoW gives your team a tangible way to show your organization prioritizing initiatives for your products or projects. 

The method can help you build company-wide consensus for your work, or at least help you show stakeholders why you made the decisions you did.

Communicating your team’s prioritization strategy also helps you set expectations across the business. When they see your methodology for choosing one initiative over another, stakeholders in other departments will understand that your team has thought through and weighed all decisions you’ve made. 

If any stakeholders have an issue with one of your decisions, they will understand that they can’t simply complain—they’ll need to present you with evidence to alter your course of action.  

Related Terms

2×2 prioritization matrix / Eisenhower matrix / DACI decision-making framework / ICE scoring model / RICE scoring model

Prioritizing your roadmap using our guide

Try productplan free for 14 days.

Russia shuts Memorial Human Rights Centre in 'one-two punch'

• Memorial Human Rights Centre kept list of political prisoners
• Centre found to have broken "foreign agent" law
• Affiliated Memorial centre already shut on Tuesday
• Critics say move is latest attack on dissent

MOSCOW, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Russia's Memorial Human Rights Centre was ordered to shut by a Moscow court on Wednesday, a day after its sister organisation - Russia's oldest human rights group - was forced to close. read more

The Human Rights Centre keeps a running list of individuals it classifies as political prisoners, including Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.

The list includes Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims convicted of terrorism that Memorial says were victims of "unproven charges based on fabricated evidence because of their religious affiliation".

"Pozor! Pozor!" (Shame! Shame!) Memorial supporters chanted outside the court, wrapped up against a temperature of -12 degrees Celsius (10 Fahrenheit).

The U.N. human rights office in Geneva said Russian courts had decided to "dissolve two of Russia’s most respected human rights groups and further weaken the country’s dwindling human rights community".

"We urge the Russian authorities to protect and support people and organizations that work to advance human rights across the Russian Federation," it added.

State prosecutors had said the centre's work justified terrorism and extremism, something it denied.

They had also accused it of failing to systematically label its content as that of a "foreign agent" - an official designation carrying pejorative Soviet-era connotations that it was given in 2014.

There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin, which says it does not interfere in court decisions.

The European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday told Russia to suspend the closure of the two Memorial organisations, while it continued to examine a 2013 application against Moscow's foreign agent legislation. There was no immediate response from Russia.

The Centre operates a network of offices across the predominantly Muslim North Caucasus region, where it has documented rights abuses in places such as Chechnya and provided legal and practical help to victims.

Those offices will have to be shut unless the Centre wins an appeal.

Anna Dobrovolskaya, the centre's executive director, said outside the court that the authorities appeared set on purging all human rights groups, starting with Memorial.

[1/7] Supporters of the human rights group Memorial gather outside the Moscow City Court building during a hearing to consider the closure of the Memorial human rights center in Moscow, Russia, December 29, 2021. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina Acquire Licensing Rights

'TOO AWKWARD'

"We can't say this was a complete surprise for us," she said.

"There was a feeling that the space (for rights work) is shrinking. Many people will be really upset when they see these events, and many people will write about the onset of medieval and dark times."

She said the ruling would have a chilling effect on other rights activists. "Obviously our work had become too awkward, and bothered someone."

The ruling, like the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to shut down Memorial International, famous for chronicling and keeping alive the memory of Stalin-era crimes, was condemned by international rights groups.

"In two days, Russia's courts delivered a one-two punch to Russia's human rights movement," tweeted Rachel Denber of New York-based Human Rights Watch.

"Almost exactly 30 years after the end of the Soviet era, authorities are setting new, repressive boundaries on what can be said about the past and what can be said and done about abuse in today’s Russia."

The legal onslaught capped a year in which Navalny, the Kremlin's leading critic, was jailed, his movement banned and many of his associates forced to flee. Moscow says it is simply thwarting extremism and shielding Russia from malign foreign influence.

Critics say Vladimir Putin, in power as president or prime minister since 1999, and at odds with the West on everything from Ukraine to Syria, is turning back the clock to the Soviet era, when all dissent was crushed.

Memorial was established in the final years of the Soviet Union and initially investigated the crimes of the Soviet period, but later began inquiring into modern-day abuses too.

One supporter outside the court, who only gave his first name, Yegor, said the Memorial Human Rights Centre ruling was "appalling" for the Russian people.

"It was a genuinely useful organisation that defended the rights of innocent people who were being persecuted for their convictions," he said.

"There needs to be an opposition, people with different views. That's what the principles of political competition are about."

Additional reporting by Svetlana Ivanova and Maxim Rodionov in Moscow, by Olzhas Auyezov and by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Barbara Lewis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

As Russia Chief Political Correspondent, and former Moscow bureau chief, Andrew helps lead coverage of the world's largest country, whose political, economic and social transformation under President Vladimir Putin he has reported on for much of the last two decades, along with its growing confrontation with the West and wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Andrew was part of a Wall Street Journal reporting team short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting. He has also reported from Moscow for two British newspapers, The Telegraph and The Independent.

US House passes Republicans' Israel-only aid bill, faces dead end in Senate

Russia's biggest drone strike in weeks hits critical Ukrainian infrastructure

New routes, old coaches: Europe's night trains struggle to pick up speed

Putin ally warns 'enemy' Poland: you risk losing your statehood

More from Reuters

Irish PM says Israel actions in Gaza resemble 'something approaching revenge'

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar on Friday described Israel's actions in Gaza as "something approaching revenge", in some of the strongest criticism of Israel by a leader of a European Union member state.

In diamond centre Antwerp, Russian gems are already shunned

European chamber in China criticises upcoming Shanghai trade fair as 'political showcase'

Kremlin dismisses report on Wagner plan to give Hezbollah air defence system

Democratic lawmaker Phillips loaning his campaign $2 mln against Biden

• FOREIGN POLICY
• DOMESTIC POLICY
• World World Into section →
• Oil & gas industry
• Internet & Telecom
• Trade & Cooperation
• Military & Defense Military & Defense Into section →
• Science & Space Science & Space Into section →
• Emergencies Emergencies Into section →
• Society & Culture Society & Culture Into section →
• Press Review Press Review Into section →
• Sports Sports Into section →
• Special projects
• NEWS TERMINAL
• Personal data processing policy TASS
• Press Releases
• Privacy Policy​ tass.com
• Terms of use
• Anti-Corruption
• Advertising

Moscow City Court abolishes Moscow Helsinki Group

MOSCOW, January 25. /TASS/. The Moscow City Court on Wednesday abolished one of Russia's oldest human rights organizations - the Moscow Helsinki Group - thus satisfying a claim filed by the Ministry of Justice.

"The petition filed by the Ministry of Justice regarding the abolition of the human rights organization Moscow Helsinki Group shall be satisfied," says the verdict the judge read out. The court’s decision has not yet entered into force and can be appealed. The group will appeal the ruling, defense lawyer Genry Reznik told TASS. The court announced only the operative part of the judgement so the motives remain unknown.

During the debate the Justice Ministry argued that the main reason for the abolition of the MHG was that it carried out its activities throughout the country, while the group had the status of a regional organization.

"The MHG is registered as a regional Moscow organization, but it conducted its activities extraterritorially, which is an irreparable violation," the Justice Ministry’s representative said. The prosecutor's office supported the Justice Ministry’s claim, interpreting the audit data to be objective and confirming the violations found were irremediable.

In turn, MHG co-chair Valery Borshchev said that the group’s abolition was a blow to the global human rights movement, destroying a unique social phenomenon. He recalled that at the moment of its creation the MHG was conceived as a consolidating body of the Russian human rights movement. "This is the country's oldest human rights organization, and from the first days of its existence it has been carrying out broad, consolidating activities. Therefore, the claims made are absurd. Human rights are extraterritorial," he said.

The human rights organization Moscow Helsinki Group was founded on May 12, 1976. In May 1996, the organization was headed by Lyudmila Alekseyeva. She died on December 8, 2018. After her death, the MHG’s leadership structure changed: instead of having one chairman, three co-chairs were introduced. In January 2019, Valery Borshchev, Vyacheslav Bakhmin and Dmitry Makarov were elected to these positions.