{"title":"酷刑的刑事责任:现代法规与实施问题","authors":"Nina Skripchenko","doi":"10.17150/2500-4255.2023.17(4).372-382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Russian legislators criminalized torture for the first time in 1993, and for a long time did not connect torture with the actions of state power representatives, ensuring the performance of international obligations through general prohibitions. The implementation of norms constituting the legal mechanism of counteracting torture revealed their technical legal drawbacks and lead to the introduction of amendments in Art. 117, 286 and 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in July 2022. The transformation of Russian normative definition of actions constituting torture made the Russian approach maximally close to the conventional one. However, the Russian definition of “torture” lacks a conventional feature — a special status of the subject and the deviation from the universal definition of the subject content of the norms providing for liability for torture — which leads to different qualification of similar actions and excludes the application of more serious sanctions towards officials who «sanction» torture outside the sphere of justice. The article argues for the suggestion to widen the subject content of Part 4, Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The revealed normative desynchronization of defining torture in relation to violence in the system of qualifying features of adjacent methods of committing crimes should not lead to differences in the legal assessment that evidently are outside the official powers of a public official, as the differences in the contents of violence and torture define the competing role of these methods of committing crimes in crime qualification. Unlike violence, encompassing harm to health, the harm specified in the legal definition of «torture» does not include bodily harm, raising the question of possible additional qualification on crimes against health. The consistency of law enforcement makes it necessary to clarify this question at the level of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The severity of sanctions of Part 4, Art. 286 and Part 3, Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the basis for a wider interpretation that does not require cumulative offences under articles in Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Exclusion of torture from the number of qualifying features did not lead to partial decriminalization due to a normative «conversion» by an objectively similar way, which does not only exclude the reconsideration of verdicts containing accusations under Item «д», Part 2, Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of Art. 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but also makes it possible to use practice-based criteria when defining torture.","PeriodicalId":43975,"journal":{"name":"Russian Journal of Criminology","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criminal Responsibility for Torture: Modern Regulation and Implementation Problems\",\"authors\":\"Nina Skripchenko\",\"doi\":\"10.17150/2500-4255.2023.17(4).372-382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Russian legislators criminalized torture for the first time in 1993, and for a long time did not connect torture with the actions of state power representatives, ensuring the performance of international obligations through general prohibitions. The implementation of norms constituting the legal mechanism of counteracting torture revealed their technical legal drawbacks and lead to the introduction of amendments in Art. 117, 286 and 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in July 2022. The transformation of Russian normative definition of actions constituting torture made the Russian approach maximally close to the conventional one. However, the Russian definition of “torture” lacks a conventional feature — a special status of the subject and the deviation from the universal definition of the subject content of the norms providing for liability for torture — which leads to different qualification of similar actions and excludes the application of more serious sanctions towards officials who «sanction» torture outside the sphere of justice. The article argues for the suggestion to widen the subject content of Part 4, Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The revealed normative desynchronization of defining torture in relation to violence in the system of qualifying features of adjacent methods of committing crimes should not lead to differences in the legal assessment that evidently are outside the official powers of a public official, as the differences in the contents of violence and torture define the competing role of these methods of committing crimes in crime qualification. Unlike violence, encompassing harm to health, the harm specified in the legal definition of «torture» does not include bodily harm, raising the question of possible additional qualification on crimes against health. The consistency of law enforcement makes it necessary to clarify this question at the level of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The severity of sanctions of Part 4, Art. 286 and Part 3, Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the basis for a wider interpretation that does not require cumulative offences under articles in Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Exclusion of torture from the number of qualifying features did not lead to partial decriminalization due to a normative «conversion» by an objectively similar way, which does not only exclude the reconsideration of verdicts containing accusations under Item «д», Part 2, Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of Art. 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but also makes it possible to use practice-based criteria when defining torture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2023.17(4).372-382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2023.17(4).372-382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Criminal Responsibility for Torture: Modern Regulation and Implementation Problems
Russian legislators criminalized torture for the first time in 1993, and for a long time did not connect torture with the actions of state power representatives, ensuring the performance of international obligations through general prohibitions. The implementation of norms constituting the legal mechanism of counteracting torture revealed their technical legal drawbacks and lead to the introduction of amendments in Art. 117, 286 and 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in July 2022. The transformation of Russian normative definition of actions constituting torture made the Russian approach maximally close to the conventional one. However, the Russian definition of “torture” lacks a conventional feature — a special status of the subject and the deviation from the universal definition of the subject content of the norms providing for liability for torture — which leads to different qualification of similar actions and excludes the application of more serious sanctions towards officials who «sanction» torture outside the sphere of justice. The article argues for the suggestion to widen the subject content of Part 4, Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The revealed normative desynchronization of defining torture in relation to violence in the system of qualifying features of adjacent methods of committing crimes should not lead to differences in the legal assessment that evidently are outside the official powers of a public official, as the differences in the contents of violence and torture define the competing role of these methods of committing crimes in crime qualification. Unlike violence, encompassing harm to health, the harm specified in the legal definition of «torture» does not include bodily harm, raising the question of possible additional qualification on crimes against health. The consistency of law enforcement makes it necessary to clarify this question at the level of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The severity of sanctions of Part 4, Art. 286 and Part 3, Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the basis for a wider interpretation that does not require cumulative offences under articles in Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Exclusion of torture from the number of qualifying features did not lead to partial decriminalization due to a normative «conversion» by an objectively similar way, which does not only exclude the reconsideration of verdicts containing accusations under Item «д», Part 2, Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of Art. 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but also makes it possible to use practice-based criteria when defining torture.
期刊介绍:
Current stage of law development is defined by novelty in all life spheres of Russian society. The anticipated renovation of legal system is determined by international life globalization. The globalization provides both positive and negative trends. Negative trends include increase in crime internationally, transnationally and nationally. Actualization of international, transnational and national crime counteraction issue defines the role and importance of «Russian Journal of Criminology» publication. Society, scientists, law-enforcement system officers, public servants and those concerned about international rule declared individual legal rights and interests’ enforcement take a tender interest in crime counteraction issue. The abovementioned trends in the Russian Federation legal system development initiate a mission of finding a real mechanism of crime counteraction and legal protection of human rights. Scientists and practicians’ interaction will certainly contribute to objective achievement. Therefore, «Russian Journal of Criminology» publication is aimed at criminology science knowledge application to complete analysis and practical, organizational, legal and informational strategies development. The activity of «Russian Journal of Criminology» that involves exchange of scientific theoretical and practical recommendations on crime counteraction between Russian and foreign legal sciences representatives will help concentrating the efforts and coordinating the actions domestically and internationally. Due to the high social importance of «Russian Journal of Criminology» role in solving theoretical and practical problems of crime counteraction, the Editorial Board is comprised of Russian and foreign leading scientists whose works are the basis for criminological science.