1. It is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law by a person acting in pursuance of an order or instruction that is binding on him. The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
2. A person who has committed an intentional crime in execution of a knowingly illegal order or instruction shall bear criminal liability on a general basis. Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
- Article 41. Justified risk
- Article 43. Concept and purposes of punishment
Commentary to Art. 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
In Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes a general rule according to which responsibility for harm caused as a result of the execution of an order or instruction that is binding on a person is borne not by the person who directly caused the harm, but by the person who gave the order or instruction.
This provision is especially important for persons who are fully subject to the rules on the obligation to carry out orders or instructions from superiors. For example, military service and a number of other services (police, Ministry of Emergency Situations, etc.) require unconditional execution of orders or instructions given. In particular, in accordance with Art. 39 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, approved. By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 10, 2007 N 1495, an order is an order of the commander (chief), addressed to subordinates and requiring the mandatory implementation of certain actions, compliance with certain rules, or establishing any order or regulation. At the same time, discussion (criticism) of the order is unacceptable, and failure to comply with the order of the commander (chief), given in the prescribed manner, is a crime against military service. The order of the commander (chief) must be carried out unquestioningly, accurately and on time. Only after executing the order can a soldier who disagrees with the order be able to appeal it.
———————————
NW RF. 2007. N 47 (part 1). Art. 5749.
The binding nature of an order (instruction), in addition to the order of execution of the service, is also determined by a number of formal parameters. First, the order must be given by the proper person. As a rule, this is an order from a boss to his subordinate. Secondly, the order must be given in the proper form. For example, in accordance with Art. 39 of the above-mentioned Charter, an order given in writing is the main administrative official document (normative act) of military command, issued on the basis of unity of command by the commander of a military unit. All commanders (chiefs) have the right to give verbal orders to their subordinates. Third, the order must be given within the authority of the person giving the order. Thus, daily duty is assigned by order of the regiment commander to maintain internal order, protect personnel, weapons, military equipment and ammunition, premises and other military property of a military unit (unit), monitor the state of affairs in units and timely take measures to prevent offenses, but cannot be appointed as a platoon commander. And the last sign of the obligatory nature of an order (instruction) is that it must not be deliberately illegal. So, in accordance with Art. 41 of the same Charter, commanders (chiefs) are prohibited from giving orders (orders) that are not related to the performance of military service duties or aimed at violating the legislation of the Russian Federation. Commanders (chiefs) who gave such orders (orders) are held accountable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Knowing means that for the person carrying out the order, it is absolutely clear and there is no doubt about its illegality. In those cases where the illegality of the order is not obvious, responsibility for causing harm, as noted above, lies with the person who gave the order. His actions in such a situation are considered as the actions of a performer.
If a person causes harm in pursuance of a obviously illegal order, then his actions in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are recognized as a crime. The criminality of the act in this case, in addition to other signs, is also due to the fact that, executing a knowingly illegal order, the person acts intentionally, as indicated by the sign of knowledge, and, therefore, in such situations, the person is aware of the social danger of his actions, foresees the possibility or inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences and desires their occurrence or consciously admits the possibility of such consequences occurring or is indifferent to them. In such cases, unlike the previous one, the actions of the person who gave the order should be qualified as the actions of the organizer, and the person who carried out the order as the actions of the executor. When the objective side of a crime is jointly carried out by both a subordinate and a person who has given a knowingly illegal order, their actions should be considered as committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
At the same time, the law takes into account that a subordinate, committing a crime in the situation under consideration, still carries out the order of his superior and classifies this circumstance as a mitigating circumstance (clause “g”, Part 1, Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Here you should pay attention to the fact that an order or instruction is simultaneously a mental coercion of a person to perform certain actions, which can also be regarded as a circumstance mitigating punishment (clause “e” of Part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). With such a coincidence, in our opinion, only one of the circumstances that is most suitable for a particular situation should be taken into account as a mitigating punishment. In addition, the presence of a deliberately illegal order or instruction can create conditions of extreme necessity for a subordinate, when, by executing a deliberately illegal order, a person causes less harm compared to the harm that could have occurred as a result of non-execution of the order. In such cases, the act is assessed from the perspective of the rules established by Art. 39 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
Execution of an order or instruction
Article 42. Execution of an order or instruction
1. It is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law by a person acting in pursuance of an order or instruction that is binding on him. The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
2. A person who has committed an intentional crime in execution of a knowingly illegal order or instruction shall bear criminal liability on a general basis. Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
In accordance with Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law by a person acting in pursuance of an order or instruction that is binding on him. The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
A person who has committed an intentional crime in pursuance of a knowingly illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability on a general basis. Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
For the first time (except for the fundamentals of criminal legislation of 1991 that did not come into force) the circumstance under consideration received its legislative regulation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, questions related to assessing the legality of causing harm to interests protected by criminal law when a subordinate executes an order or a superior’s order arise quite often in practice: first of all, this concerns military personnel, employees of internal affairs bodies, the Federal Security Service, federal state security agencies, tax police, customs service and some other categories of government employees.
The general provision established in Art. 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is that actions (inaction) in pursuance of a mandatory order or instruction associated with causing harm to legally protected interests are not a crime.
The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
An order or instruction is understood as a mandatory requirement made by a superior to a subordinate. This requirement can be oral or written, and can be conveyed to the subordinate either directly by the boss or through other persons.
An order or instruction is a manifestation of the will of the boss.
Due to the mandatory nature of an order or instruction, the subordinate’s belief in their legality, and trust in them, they are considered as grounds for certain actions (inaction) by the executor and even as acts that replace the actions of the executor.
Their legal force is greater than the performing action itself.
Therefore, responsibility for the consequences of an illegal order or instruction rests with the superior who issued it.
The illegality of an order or instruction can be expressed both in the incompetence of an official to give such an order (instruction), in particular when it does not correspond to the goals and objectives of a given institution, organization, department, and in failure to comply with the established form of the order or instruction (for example, written).
Most often, the illegality of an order or regulation is determined by its content, which contradicts the requirements of current laws and other regulations.
The criminality of an order or instruction means that it does not comply with the requirements of criminal law. In most cases, actions (inaction) committed in pursuance of a criminal order (instruction) are associated with a violation of human and civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
So, the first condition for the legality of actions (inaction) of a person executing an order or instruction is the latter’s compliance with the requirements of the law.
An illegal order cannot be executed. Otherwise, if harm is caused to interests protected by criminal law, criminal liability arises.
In this case, both the person who gave this order (instruction) and its executor are subject to liability if he was aware of the illegality of such an expression of the will of the superior.
By issuing an illegal order (instruction), the boss may act deliberately, contrary to the interests of the service, out of selfish or other personal interest.
In such cases, he must be responsible not only for the consequences of the execution of an illegal order (instruction), but also for abuse of official powers (Article 285), which was expressed in the use of a subordinate to achieve these illegal goals.
The second condition for the legality of actions (inaction) of a person executing an order or instruction is the lack of awareness of its illegality on the part of that person.
If the executor of the order (instruction) knowingly knew about its criminal nature, he is subject to criminal liability on a general basis.
Here there is complicity in a crime with a division of roles.
The boss acts as the organizer of an intentional crime (Part 3 of Article 33), the subordinate acts as its executor (Part 2 of Article 33). The fact that the subordinate is a person dependent on the boss and the selectivity of his behavior was, to one degree or another, suppressed by the order of the boss, can be recognized as a mitigating circumstance (clauses “f” and “g”, part 1 of article 61).
If the subordinate acted under the influence of physical or mental coercion, then the provisions of Art. 40 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
When executing a obviously illegal order or instruction, a subordinate may commit not only an intentional, but also a careless crime.
For example, he negligently causes the death of a person subjected to physical force by order of his superior. In such cases, criminal liability arises for an independent careless crime.
Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
Control questions on the topics: “Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.”
1. The concept and types of circumstances excluding the criminality of an act.
2. Necessary defense: theoretical and legislative definition.
3. Conditions for the legality of the necessary defense related to the encroachment.
4. Conditions for the legality of the necessary defense related to the defense.
5. Extreme necessity. Theoretical and legislative definition.
6. Conditions of legality of extreme necessity related to danger.
7. Condition of legality of extreme necessity related to protection.
8. Causing harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime.
9. Conditions for the legality of causing harm.
10. Other circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.
Questions to prepare for a seminar lesson on the topic: “Circumstances excluding the criminality of an act.”
1. What is meant by circumstances excluding the criminality of an act?
2. What types of circumstances excluding the criminality of an act are legislated in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?
3. What is meant by necessary defense?
4. What relates to the conditions of legality in the case of necessary defense?
5. What are the conditions of legality relating to infringement?
6. What are the conditions of validity relevant to the defense?
7. What actions are considered to exceed the limits of necessary defense?
8. What is meant by extreme necessity?
9. What relates to the conditions of legality in cases of extreme necessity?
10. What are the conditions for the legitimacy of extreme necessity related to danger?
11. What are the conditions for the legitimacy of extreme necessity related to the elimination of danger?
12. What is the difference between necessary defense and extreme necessity?
13. What is meant by causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime?
14. What are the conditions for the legality of detaining a person who has committed a crime?
15. What are the conditions for the legality of causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime?
16. What is the difference between causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime and necessary defense?
17. What is meant by physical coercion?
18. What is meant by mental coercion?
19. What is meant by reasonable risk?
20. What constitutes the execution of an order or instruction as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act?
Additional literature on the topic: Circumstances excluding criminality of an act:
1. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR dated August 16, 1984. No. 14 “On the application by courts of legislation ensuring the right to necessary defense against socially dangerous attacks.” BVS USSR. 1984. No. 5. (The resolution has advisory value insofar as it does not contradict current legislation).
2. Vaulin Yu. V. Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act. Kharkiv. 1991
3. Kozachenko I. Ya. et al. Controversial issues of qualification and detention of criminals. Ekaterinburg. 1992.
4. Koni A.F. On the right of necessary defense. M. 1996.
5. Zuev V. L. Necessary defense and extreme necessity. M. 1996.
6. Merkuryev V.V. Necessary defense: criminal legal and criminological aspects. Ryazan. 1998.
7. Oreshkina T. Extreme necessity as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act. Criminal law. 1999. No. 3.
8. Kelina S. Circumstances excluding criminality: concept and types. Criminal law. 1999. No. 3.
9. Oreshkina T. Physical or mental coercion as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act. Criminal law. 2000. No. 1.
10. Biteev V. et al. Extreme necessity and justified risk in medical relations. Criminal law. 2001. No. 3.
11. Krylova N. Pavlova N. Extreme necessity in medical activities: some issues of practical application. Criminal law 2005. No. 1.
12. Oreshkina T. Circumstances excluding criminality of acts in the special part of the Criminal Code. Criminal law. 2005. No. 1.
13. Morozov V. Khametdinova G. Some aspects of criminal liability when exceeding the limits of extreme necessity. Criminal law. 2005 No. 1
14. Gorbatovich A. The nature of guilt when exceeding the limits of necessary defense. Criminal law. 2006. No. 3.
15. Tasakov S. Moral principles of the criminal law on necessary defense. Criminal law. 2006. No. 5.
16. Kaburneev E. On some problems of qualification of causing death when the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. Criminal law. 2006 No. 6.
17. Garbatovich D. Necessary defense in the protection of property rights. Criminal law. 2007. No. 2.
18. Agadzhanyan A. The effectiveness of the norm on necessary defense. Criminal law. 2007 No. 3.
19. Baburin V. Criminal law assessment of lawful infliction of harm. Criminal law. 2007. No. 3.
20. Shumikhin V. Innocent harm. Criminal law. 2007. No. 4.
21. Gorbatovich D. Necessary defense in protecting freedom and sexual integrity Criminal Law 2008 No. 1.
22. Pobegailo E. On the limits of necessary defense. Criminal law 2008 No. 2.
Article 42. Execution of an order or instruction
1. It is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law by a person acting in pursuance of an order or instruction that is binding on him. The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
2. A person who has committed an intentional crime in execution of a knowingly illegal order or instruction shall bear criminal liability on a general basis. Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
In accordance with Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law by a person acting in pursuance of an order or instruction that is binding on him. The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
A person who has committed an intentional crime in pursuance of a knowingly illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability on a general basis. Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
For the first time (except for the fundamentals of criminal legislation of 1991 that did not come into force) the circumstance under consideration received its legislative regulation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, questions related to assessing the legality of causing harm to interests protected by criminal law when a subordinate executes an order or a superior’s order arise quite often in practice: first of all, this concerns military personnel, employees of internal affairs bodies, the Federal Security Service, federal state security agencies, tax police, customs service and some other categories of government employees.
The general provision established in Art. 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is that actions (inaction) in pursuance of a mandatory order or instruction associated with causing harm to legally protected interests are not a crime.
The person who gave the illegal order or instruction bears criminal liability for causing such harm.
An order or instruction is understood as a mandatory requirement made by a superior to a subordinate. This requirement can be oral or written, and can be conveyed to the subordinate either directly by the boss or through other persons.
An order or instruction is a manifestation of the will of the boss.
Due to the mandatory nature of an order or instruction, the subordinate’s belief in their legality, and trust in them, they are considered as grounds for certain actions (inaction) by the executor and even as acts that replace the actions of the executor.
Their legal force is greater than the performing action itself.
Therefore, responsibility for the consequences of an illegal order or instruction rests with the superior who issued it.
The illegality of an order or instruction can be expressed both in the incompetence of an official to give such an order (instruction), in particular when it does not correspond to the goals and objectives of a given institution, organization, department, and in failure to comply with the established form of the order or instruction (for example, written).
Most often, the illegality of an order or regulation is determined by its content, which contradicts the requirements of current laws and other regulations.
The criminality of an order or instruction means that it does not comply with the requirements of criminal law. In most cases, actions (inaction) committed in pursuance of a criminal order (instruction) are associated with a violation of human and civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
So, the first condition for the legality of actions (inaction) of a person executing an order or instruction is the latter’s compliance with the requirements of the law.
An illegal order cannot be executed. Otherwise, if harm is caused to interests protected by criminal law, criminal liability arises.
In this case, both the person who gave this order (instruction) and its executor are subject to liability if he was aware of the illegality of such an expression of the will of the superior.
By issuing an illegal order (instruction), the boss may act deliberately, contrary to the interests of the service, out of selfish or other personal interest.
In such cases, he must be responsible not only for the consequences of the execution of an illegal order (instruction), but also for abuse of official powers (Article 285), which was expressed in the use of a subordinate to achieve these illegal goals.
The second condition for the legality of actions (inaction) of a person executing an order or instruction is the lack of awareness of its illegality on the part of that person.
If the executor of the order (instruction) knowingly knew about its criminal nature, he is subject to criminal liability on a general basis.
Here there is complicity in a crime with a division of roles.
The boss acts as the organizer of an intentional crime (Part 3 of Article 33), the subordinate acts as its executor (Part 2 of Article 33). The fact that the subordinate is a person dependent on the boss and the selectivity of his behavior was, to one degree or another, suppressed by the order of the boss, can be recognized as a mitigating circumstance (clauses “f” and “g”, part 1 of article 61).
If the subordinate acted under the influence of physical or mental coercion, then the provisions of Art. 40 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
When executing a obviously illegal order or instruction, a subordinate may commit not only an intentional, but also a careless crime.
For example, he negligently causes the death of a person subjected to physical force by order of his superior. In such cases, criminal liability arises for an independent careless crime.
Failure to comply with a knowingly illegal order or instruction excludes criminal liability.
Control questions on the topics: “Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.”
1. The concept and types of circumstances excluding the criminality of an act.
2. Necessary defense: theoretical and legislative definition.
3. Conditions for the legality of the necessary defense related to the encroachment.
4. Conditions for the legality of the necessary defense related to the defense.
5. Extreme necessity. Theoretical and legislative definition.
6. Conditions of legality of extreme necessity related to danger.
7. Condition of legality of extreme necessity related to protection.
8. Causing harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime.
9. Conditions for the legality of causing harm.
10. Other circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.
Questions to prepare for a seminar lesson on the topic: “Circumstances excluding the criminality of an act.”
1. What is meant by circumstances excluding the criminality of an act?
2. What types of circumstances excluding the criminality of an act are legislated in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?
3. What is meant by necessary defense?
4. What relates to the conditions of legality in the case of necessary defense?
5. What are the conditions of legality relating to infringement?
6. What are the conditions of validity relevant to the defense?
7. What actions are considered to exceed the limits of necessary defense?
8. What is meant by extreme necessity?
9. What relates to the conditions of legality in cases of extreme necessity?
10. What are the conditions for the legitimacy of extreme necessity related to danger?
11. What are the conditions for the legitimacy of extreme necessity related to the elimination of danger?
12. What is the difference between necessary defense and extreme necessity?
13. What is meant by causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime?
14. What are the conditions for the legality of detaining a person who has committed a crime?
15. What are the conditions for the legality of causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime?
16. What is the difference between causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime and necessary defense?
17. What is meant by physical coercion?
18. What is meant by mental coercion?
19. What is meant by reasonable risk?
20. What constitutes the execution of an order or instruction as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act?
Additional literature on the topic: Circumstances excluding criminality of an act:
1. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR dated August 16, 1984. No. 14 “On the application by courts of legislation ensuring the right to necessary defense against socially dangerous attacks.” BVS USSR. 1984. No. 5. (The resolution has advisory value insofar as it does not contradict current legislation).
2. Vaulin Yu. V. Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act. Kharkiv. 1991
3. Kozachenko I. Ya. et al. Controversial issues of qualification and detention of criminals. Ekaterinburg. 1992.
4. Koni A.F. On the right of necessary defense. M. 1996.
5. Zuev V. L. Necessary defense and extreme necessity. M. 1996.
6. Merkuryev V.V. Necessary defense: criminal legal and criminological aspects. Ryazan. 1998.
7. Oreshkina T. Extreme necessity as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act. Criminal law. 1999. No. 3.
8. Kelina S. Circumstances excluding criminality: concept and types. Criminal law. 1999. No. 3.
9. Oreshkina T. Physical or mental coercion as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act. Criminal law. 2000. No. 1.
10. Biteev V. et al. Extreme necessity and justified risk in medical relations. Criminal law. 2001. No. 3.
11. Krylova N. Pavlova N. Extreme necessity in medical activities: some issues of practical application. Criminal law 2005. No. 1.
12. Oreshkina T. Circumstances excluding criminality of acts in the special part of the Criminal Code. Criminal law. 2005. No. 1.
13. Morozov V. Khametdinova G. Some aspects of criminal liability when exceeding the limits of extreme necessity. Criminal law. 2005 No. 1
14. Gorbatovich A. The nature of guilt when exceeding the limits of necessary defense. Criminal law. 2006. No. 3.
15. Tasakov S. Moral principles of the criminal law on necessary defense. Criminal law. 2006. No. 5.
16. Kaburneev E. On some problems of qualification of causing death when the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. Criminal law. 2006 No. 6.
17. Garbatovich D. Necessary defense in the protection of property rights. Criminal law. 2007. No. 2.
18. Agadzhanyan A. The effectiveness of the norm on necessary defense. Criminal law. 2007 No. 3.
19. Baburin V. Criminal law assessment of lawful infliction of harm. Criminal law. 2007. No. 3.
20. Shumikhin V. Innocent harm. Criminal law. 2007. No. 4.
21. Gorbatovich D. Necessary defense in protecting freedom and sexual integrity Criminal Law 2008 No. 1.
22. Pobegailo E. On the limits of necessary defense. Criminal law 2008 No. 2.
Judicial practice under Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 20, 2020 in case No. 80-UD20-4-A4
Within the meaning of the law (Part 8 of Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) in criminal cases of crimes the consequence of which was the death of a person, the rights of the victim , pass to one or more of his close relatives and (or) close persons. The daughter and brother of the deceased person by virtue of paragraph 4 of Art. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are his close relatives. Contrary to the opinion of the lawyer, the law does not establish any order in which close relatives of a person killed as a result of a crime should be recognized as victims.
The concept of an illegal order and its legal regulation
Social and legal relations within the framework of employment or service imply the presence of a strictly defined vertical of power. At the same time, persons higher in the official or official ladder have the right to issue orders and instructions that are mandatory for execution by lower-level employees or subordinates. Responsibilities for their implementation are fixed in the military regulations, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory documents.
At the same time, in some cases, the execution of an order may lead to the commission of unlawful acts containing signs of criminal offenses. Considering that failure to comply with an order may entail disciplinary liability, Russian legislation regulates exemption from liability for actions related to the direct execution of orders from superiors. However, there are some limitations.
In particular, an example of a normative document providing exemption from liability is Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is included in the chapter explaining cases of non-enforcement of criminal liability. This article regulates liability for the execution of illegal orders or their non-execution. It applies to both workers and employees of internal affairs bodies, security agencies, as well as persons in military service.
note
The current standards of administrative law in Russia do not provide for exemption from such liability resulting from the execution of illegal orders.
Responsibility for giving illegal orders
If an order or other instruction in relation to an employee or subordinate implied the commission of illegal acts punishable by criminal law, the person who gave such order is fully liable under the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as if he himself was a direct accomplice in the crime.
Issues of complicity in a crime and punishment for it are considered by the provisions of Art. 32-36 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A person who gave an illegal order is considered as an instigator or organizer of a crime.
In addition, the person who issued the illegal order may also be additionally convicted of exceeding official authority, if any. Or, liability may be provided for the illegal use of existing official powers, depending on the nature of the crime. However, in some situations, namely, when the issuance of an illegal order did not contain signs of an intentional crime, the person in question is subject to conviction precisely for an unintentional socially dangerous act.
note
The presence of liability for giving illegal orders does not relieve the executor of such orders from liability. However, holding a person who refused to execute an order accountable for failure to execute it is not permissible if the illegality of the orders issued has been confirmed.
