ST 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Forcing a suspect, accused, victim, witness to give testimony or an expert, specialist to give an opinion or testimony through the use of threats, blackmail or other illegal actions on the part of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry, as well as another person with the knowledge or tacit consent of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry - is punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term.
2. The same act, combined with the use of violence, bullying or torture, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to eight years.
Commentary to Art. 302 of the Criminal Code
1. The victim is a suspect, accused, victim, witness, expert or specialist.
2. The objective side is expressed in the form of coercive actions through the use of threats, blackmail or other illegal actions to give testimony and (or) conclusion. A threat is an information message that has a mental impact on a person, which expresses the intention to cause harm to this person, his loved ones, and the benefits and interests associated with them. Blackmail is the presentation of demands to obtain specified information under the threat of dissemination of compromising information and the occurrence of adverse consequences for the person in possession of it or his relatives. Other illegal actions include deception, the use of provocations, humiliating or cruel treatment, etc. These actions, combined with the use of violence, bullying or torture (Part 2), form a qualified crime. Bullying is a special type of humiliating, cruel treatment associated with moral and psychological physical impact through cynical humiliation of a person’s honor, dignity, beliefs, worldview, as well as through infliction of physiological deprivation (interrogations at night).
3. The crime is recognized as completed from the moment of committing actions aimed at forcing the specified persons to give testimony and (or) conclusion, regardless of the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences.
4. Forcing witnesses or extras to confirm false information contained in the protocol of the relevant investigative action is not subject to qualification under this article, but if there are appropriate signs, it may be qualified under Art. 285, 286 or 303 of the Criminal Code.
5. Special subject (investigator, person conducting the inquiry, persons exercising their powers (head of the investigative body, head of the inquiry body)) or general (other persons acting with the knowledge or tacit consent of the investigator or person conducting the inquiry who have reached the age of 16 age (usually law enforcement officers, employees of places of detention)).
Acquittal for murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
The preliminary investigation authorities accused P. of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Murder.
At the stage of the preliminary investigation, P., without promptly taking advantage of the help of a defense lawyer, incriminated himself in committing a crime. During the trial of the case, lawyer Pavel Domkin managed to cast doubt on the totality of the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence collected during the investigation stage and convince the court of the defendant’s self-incrimination.
The court agreed with the lawyer’s arguments and ruled against the defendant P. an acquittal due to his non-involvement in the commission of the crime. By the ruling of the Moscow Regional Court, the acquittal against P. was left unchanged.
PRI G O V O R
In the name of the Russian Federation
Lyubertsy, February 02, 2006
Judge of the Lyubertsy City Court of the Moscow Region Panteleeva S.Yu., with the participation of the state prosecutor, prosecutor of the city of Lyubertsy M.Yu. Gorodov, defendant P., lawyer Domkin P.A., who presented certificate No. 6792 and warrant No. 325, with secretary Ostapenko A. .G., Alpatova E.V., having examined the materials of the criminal case in P., born in 1969, native of Lyubertsy, Moscow region, citizen of the Russian Federation, with secondary education, married, worked: customs terminal LLC ___ as a loader, living: Moscow region Lyubertsy, Oktyabrsky pr-kt, __ apt. __, not convicted, accused of committing a crime under Art. 105 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
U S T A N O V I L :
The defendant P. is accused by the preliminary investigation authorities of committing murder, that is, of intentionally causing the death of another person. The crime, as stated in the indictment, was committed under the following circumstances: on May 15, 2005, in the period from 02 to 12 o’clock, P. was in an apartment at the address: Moscow region, Lyubertsy, Oktyabrsky Prospekt, ...; being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, deliberately with the intent to kill, inflicted multiple blows with a knife on various parts of the body to an unknown woman, identified as V., born 19..., causing her the following bodily injuries through his actions - a skin wound on the chest on the left at the level of the fifth intercostal space between midclavicular and anterior axillary lines, penetrating into the left pleural and abdominal cavities with damage to the left lung, diaphragm and stomach, related to serious harm to health; 23 skin wounds located on the back on the left with wound channels penetrating into the left pleural cavity with damage to the tissue of the left lung, related to serious harm to health - two stab wounds of the soft tissues of the face in the postauricular area on the right, tri-stab wounds of the soft tissues in the area the angle of the lower jaw on the right, two incised wounds of the third and fourth fingers of the right hand, related to slight harm to health. V. died at the scene from her injuries. Her death was due to acute blood loss as a result of multiple stab wounds to the chest with damage to the left lung.
Having interrogated the defendant P., who did not admit guilt, as well as the witnesses indicated in the list of lindens to be summoned to the court hearing, and having examined other evidence presented by the investigative authorities, the court established the following circumstances of the criminal case:
On the night of May 14-15, 2005, P. drank alcohol with a previously unknown S., in an apartment that the latter was temporarily renting, located at the address: Moscow region, Lyubertsy, Oktyabrsky Prospekt, ... approximately 5 -6 o'clock in the morning P. and S. went to the store to buy more alcohol. On the street they met a girl, V., and invited her to S.’s apartment to drink alcohol. Arriving at the apartment located at the above address, the three of them began to drink alcohol. At approximately 10-11 o'clock in the morning, S. came to the nearby police station and stated that he had the body of a woman in his apartment. Police officers, having arrived at the above address, found the corpse of citizen V. lying on the floor, on a sheet, with multiple stab wounds to the body, and sleeping next to him with difficulty on the floor, on another sheet, head to head P., who was in severe degree of alcohol intoxication. There were multiple blood stains on the floor, wall, sofa and other objects in the room. There were two knives on the floor, also with traces of blood. P. was taken to the police station. The court established these circumstances on the basis of the following evidence.
Defendant P. testified in court that on the night of May 14-15, 2005, he drank alcohol with S., whom he met on the same night, in the latter’s apartment. Then they went to the store for vodka, he doesn’t remember what time it was. On the street they met a girl who turned out to be V. and invited her to go with them to drink alcohol. She agreed. Arriving at S.’s apartment, the three of them drank vodka, after which he (P.) and V. went to the kitchen to have sex; he doesn’t remember if anything worked out for them. Then he and V. returned to the room where S. was, sat down at the table and began drinking alcohol again. He (P.) was very drunk, so after drinking another glass of vodka, he immediately fell asleep and doesn’t remember what happened next; he came to his senses in the evening at the police station.
Criminal lawyer
Witness S. testified in court that from July 2004 to May 2005 inclusive, he rented out his one-room apartment located at the address: Moscow region, Lyubertsy, Oktyabrsky Prospekt d... S. lived in the apartment with wife and child, then began to live alone. After December 2004, S. stopped paying for the apartment because... he had problems with his work. At the end of May 2005, he (S.) stopped by the apartment rented by S. and saw that it was sealed. He learned from the police officers that a murder had been committed in the apartment.
Witness G. testified in court that V. was his common-law wife and on May 15, 2005, at approximately 5-6 o’clock in the morning, she went to the store to buy cigarettes and did not return.
Witness A. testified in court that her son G. is a disabled person of the 2nd group and since August 2002 began to live in a civil marriage with V., who came from the district. Ukraine, her documents were lost. May 15, 2005 her son called her and said that early in the morning V. left home to buy cigarettes and did not return. On May 16, 2005, they reported V.’s disappearance to the police and were asked to identify the murdered girl. The murdered girl was identified by her husband as V.
Witness P. testified in court that he is a police officer of the 1st GOM of Lyubertsy. On May 15, 2005, at approximately 10 a.m., Mr. S. came to the police station and reported that a woman had been killed in his apartment and the person who killed her was there. He, together with other police officers, went to the address indicated by S., and found in the apartment in the middle of the room, lying on the floor on a sheet, the corpse of a woman with stab wounds. P. lay head to head with her on the sheet, highly intoxicated. With great effort they managed to wake up P. and he and the second police officer G. took him to the police station.
Witness G. gave similar testimony at the court hearing.
At the court hearing, the testimony of witness S., given by him during the preliminary investigation, was read out due to the fact that his location was not known to the court, that on the night of May 14-15, 2005 he drank alcoholic beverages in the apartment, which he rented for temporary use from S., together with his neighbor Sergei and Alexander. Then Sergei went home, and he and Alexander went for vodka and met a girl on the street who was invited to go with them, she agreed. The three of them drank vodka in the courtyard of the house, after which they came to his house at about 6 o’clock in the morning. The three of them began drinking alcohol again, after which he fell asleep in the chair. Waking up at about 12 o'clock, he saw a girl lying on the floor on a duvet cover, her hair and face covered in blood. She had many cuts on the back of her jacket and her body was cold. Alexander lay next to her and slept. He tried to wake him up but couldn't, because... Alexander was very drunk. He ran to the police department and told about what had happened. He didn't hear any noise or screams, because... I was fast asleep, I don’t know what could have happened, the apartment door was locked from the inside with a key (ld. 157-159-167-169).
Witness S. testified in court that on the evening of May 14, 2005, he drank alcohol together with P. at Slashchev’s house. Then P. and S. left, and he fell asleep at home. He knows nothing about the circumstances of the murder.
Written materials from the criminal case were also examined:
A protocol for the inspection of the scene of the incident, a diagram and a photo table for it, according to which an apartment was inspected on Oktyabrsky Prospect in the city of Lyubertsy, where the corpse of a woman with traces of violent death was found in the room, lying on the floor, on a sheet. Two knives with brown stains similar to blood, broken bottles, and an overturned stool with traces of a brown substance in the form of streaks and splashes were found on the floor. On the floor, wall and sofa there were multiple brown spots, similar to blood in the form of streaks and splashes (case sheet 5-23),
The protocol for examining V.’s corpse and a photo table for it, which shows that the woman’s corpse was lying on the floor, face down on a sheet, and had multiple stab wounds (case sheets 24-35);
The conclusion of the forensic medical examination concluded that V.’s corpse had the following injuries: a skin wound on the chest on the left and at the level of the 5th intercostal space between the midclavicular and anterior axillary lines, a wound canal extending from it, penetrating into the left pleural and abdominal cavities with damage to the left lung, diaphragm, ventricle; 23 skin wounds located on the back on the left and wound channels extending from them, penetrating into the left pleural cavity with damage to the tissue of the left lung, two stab wounds of the soft tissues of the face in the postauricular area on the right; 3 stab wounds of soft tissue in the area of the angle of the lower jaw on the right; 2 incised wounds of the third and fourth fingers of the right hand. These wounds were formed as a result of at least 30 times the impact of a flat piercing-cutting weapon with a one-sided sharpening of the blade. 24 stab wounds penetrating the left diaphragm and stomach are classified as serious harm to health, and there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between them and the occurrence of death. V.'s death was caused by acute blood loss as a result of multiple stab wounds to the chest with damage to the left lung. The remaining stab wounds and incised wounds show signs of slight harm to health (case sheets 39-44),
Conclusion: a biological examination with the conclusion that human blood, which could have come from the injured woman, was found on the knives and in the swabs taken from the scene of the incident. No traces of sweat were found on the knives. Resin was found on cigarette butts seized from the scene of the incident, which could have come from P. and S. (case file 132138),
The conclusion of a fingerprint forensic examination with the conclusion that fingerprints taken from the scene of the incident from a stool and from a pack of Java cigarettes were left by P., and from a cup, from a bottle, from a pack of Java cigarettes were left by S. (ld. . 146-147).
The evidence presented in the indictment and supported by the state prosecutor at the trial, either individually or in the aggregate, does not provide grounds for concluding that the defendant P. is guilty of committing the murder of V. The conclusions of the preliminary investigation authorities about P.’s commission of this crime are presumptive in nature.
One of the evidence presented by the state prosecutor is P.’s testimony at the preliminary investigation, in which he fully admitted guilt in the murder of the girl as a suspect, but did not tell the circumstances of the murder, citing the fact that he does not remember anything (case sheets 70-72 ).
In subsequent testimony at the preliminary investigation and at the trial, P. renounced his initial testimony and claimed that he did not kill the girl. In court, P. explained his initial testimony by his state of shock and pressure from law enforcement agencies, and the lack of proper protection.
The court considers that P.’s testimony during the preliminary investigation as a suspect cannot be used as the basis for the prosecution since it does not contain any information about the circumstances of the murder, and it is not clear from it why P. admitted his guilt in the murder if he does not remember anything about it. This testimony is not supported by any other undisputed evidence.
Another piece of evidence referred to by the prosecution is the conclusion of a biological examination with the conclusion that human blood was found on P.’s sports jacket and trousers, which could have come from the victim. Accused P. explained the traces of V.'s blood on his clothes by saying that he was lying on the floor next to the murdered woman and could have gotten dirty. From the testimony of witnesses P. and G., the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident, it is clear that P. actually slept on the floor next to V.’s corpse, there were numerous blood stains on the floor and on various objects in the room. Consequently, the court believes that the possibility of blood stains forming on P.’s clothes under the circumstances specified by him cannot be ruled out. Moreover, these traces of blood on P.’s trousers and sports jacket were few in number and blurred.
The investigation did not obtain any other evidence that would confirm that the blood on P.’s clothes was formed in connection with his involvement in the murder of V.
The testimony of witnesses P. and K. that when they were taking the drunken P. to the police station, he answered their questions about the murder: “I didn’t want it to happen by accident, the vodka “ruined” it,” the court also cannot base accusations, since from the testimony of the witnesses themselves it is clear that P. was very drunk, therefore his phrases regarding the murder cannot be admissible evidence.
The next evidence relied on by the state prosecution is the testimony of witness S. at the preliminary investigation, mentioned above. However, the court cannot use them as the basis for charging the defendant, because S.'s testimony does not contain any information about the circumstances of the murder. In addition, the court cannot fully trust S.’s testimony, since in some details it contradicts other evidence in the case. Thus, S.’s testimony indicates that he woke up at 12 noon, after which he went to the police, reporting the murder of a woman in his apartment. His testimony in this part contradicts the testimony of witnesses P. and G. that S. appeared at the police station between 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning. In addition, the preliminary investigation authorities have not verified S.’s involvement in this crime.
According to the protocol of seizure and protocol of inspection of objects (case sheets 161-165). S.’s clothes, which he said he was wearing at the time of the murder and after the crime, and the waist circumference of 72 cm and the width of the T-shirt at the shoulders of 40 cm, in the court’s opinion, clearly do not correspond to the size of an adult large man, which, judging by the photo table to the protocol for checking the evidence at the scene of the incident is S. (case sheet 172-178).
The court was deprived of the opportunity to examine S.’s clothes, recognized as material evidence, at the court hearing because they were returned to S. during the preliminary investigation...
Evidence presented by the preliminary investigation authorities: protocol of inspection of the scene of the incident, protocol of examination of the corpse, conclusion of the forensic medical examination on V.’s corpse, protocols of verification of testimony at the scene of the incident with the participation of P. and S. (case sheets 81-87; 170-178 ), the conclusion of a fingerprint examination, the testimony of witnesses A., G., S., S., G., P. confirm only the fact of V.’s murder in the apartment rented by S. and the fact that P. was in the indicated place at that time and S., however, do not indicate P.’s involvement in the murder.
Thus, having examined, analyzed and assessed all the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court came to the conclusion that the investigative authorities did not collect indisputable evidence of P.’s guilt in the murder of V. and the conclusions about the defendant’s guilt given in the indictment are presumptive in nature, and therefore the case must result in an acquittal.
P. has the right to rehabilitation, as well as the right to compensation for property and moral damage in the manner provided for in Art. 135-136 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Based on the above, guided by Art. Art. 304-306 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court,
P O S T A N O V I L :
P., charged with committing a crime under Article 105 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is found not guilty and acquitted in accordance with Art. 302 part 2 clause 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with non-involvement in the commission of a crime.
The preventive measure is to cancel P.’s detention and release him from custody in the courtroom. P. has the right to rehabilitation, as well as the right to compensation for property and moral damage in the manner prescribed by law.
Physical evidence: sneakers, trousers, P.'s sports jacket, two knives, cigarette butts, a red sweater, blue bra, burgundy panties, V.'s black jeans - keep on file.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Moscow Regional Court through the Lyubertsy City Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation. If a cassation appeal is filed, the acquitted person has the right to petition for his participation in the cassation court.
Judge S.Yu. Panteleeva
Second commentary to Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Detention carried out in the absence of the grounds specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or in violation of at least one of the restrictive conditions is illegal. A detention carried out in gross violation of the procedure for its application established by law (for example, without drawing up a protocol, without indicating in it the time of detention or the time of its preparation) falls under the characteristics of the commented article.
2. Criminal procedural legislation regulates the grounds and procedure for detention. Detention must be lawful and justified. Legality should be understood as compliance with the norms of criminal procedural legislation regulating the procedure for applying the specified preventive measure and extending its validity period, and validity should be understood as the presence in the criminal case materials of information that confirms the need to use detention as a preventive measure.
Detention is considered illegal if:
a) there are no grounds for this specified in the law;
b) the rules and procedure for selecting this preventive measure are violated.
3. The criminal procedural legislation defines the terms of detention, the violation of which forms an independent type of the crime in question, specified in Part 2 of Art. 301 CC.
4. Crimes are considered completed from the moment the actions listed in the law are committed.
5. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent.
6. The subject of a crime is a justice official who has the right to detain or take into custody. Responsibility for illegal detention may be borne by investigators or investigators, and for illegal detention and detention - by judges.
7. In part 3 of Art. 301 of the Criminal Code specifies the qualifying feature - the onset of grave consequences. These may, for example, include the victim’s suicide or attempt on his life, mental illness or other harm to health, and the difficult financial situation of the family.
8. Coercion means that the person being interrogated is forced to testify and this testimony is not given of his own free will. Consequently, in a broad sense, coercion covers all illegal interrogation methods that violate the principle of voluntary testimony.
9. The concepts of expert, examination and conclusion of an expert, specialist are disclosed in criminal procedural law. In this case, the act is expressed in the fact that a person with special knowledge and appointed as an expert or involved in procedural actions as a specialist is forced to draw up a conclusion containing answers to the questions posed by the investigative body, or to give testimony.
10. For the characteristics of the threat, see the commentary to Art. 296 CC; blackmail - to art. 133 CC. Other illegal actions are any provocative interrogation methods, the use of falsified evidence, the unlawful detention of a witness in order to obtain testimony favorable to those conducting the investigation, false promises to drop the case, change the preventive measure, allow a visit, etc. The following is also considered illegal: the use of hypnosis, drugs, alcohol and alcohol-containing drugs to obtain the desired indications; involving psychics in obtaining evidence, etc.
11. The crime is considered completed from the moment the coercion is committed.
12. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent.
13. The subject of the crime is the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry.
14. Violence as a method of coercion to give testimony or to give an opinion is characterized by the use of various forms of physical pressure on the interrogated person, expert or specialist. Consequences in the form of causing serious harm to health or death of the victim entail liability for a set of crimes classified under Art. 302 and 111 or 105 of the Criminal Code. Mockery is mockery, especially humiliating treatment of the person being interrogated or an expert, various kinds of insults that humiliate his honor and dignity, causing him moral and physical suffering. The concept of torture is explained in the note to Art. 117 CC.
Article 302. Compulsion to testify
- home
- Laws and regulations
- Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Article 302. Compulsion to testify
1. Forcing a suspect, accused, victim, witness to give testimony or an expert, specialist to give an opinion or testimony through the use of threats, blackmail or other illegal actions on the part of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry, as well as another person with the knowledge or tacit consent of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry -
is punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term.
2. The same act, combined with the use of violence, bullying or torture, -
is punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to eight years.
Commentary on Article 302
Main object
of this crime are in the interests of justice. An additional object is the interests of the individual.
The public danger of coercion to give testimony and conclusions is that testimony obtained in this way can lead to an unjust verdict or other judicial act, to the conviction of an innocent person, which compromises the bodies administering justice and seriously violates the rights and interests of the individual.
Objective side
crime is expressed in the action of forcing a suspect, accused, victim, witness to give testimony or an expert to give an opinion by using threats, blackmail or other illegal actions on the part of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry, as well as another person with the knowledge or tacit consent of the investigator or person conducting the inquiry.
Circle of victims
expressly stated in the law: suspect, accused, victim, witness, expert, specialist. Therefore, actions to compel testimony directed at persons who do not have the specified status do not constitute the crime under consideration. For example, influence on a person detained on suspicion of committing a crime, but not recognized as a suspect, should be qualified under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (exceeding official powers), if the act was committed by an official, and under other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if the act was committed by a person who does not have official powers.
Under duress
is understood as such an influence on the interrogated person (suspect, accused, victim, witness, expert) that suppresses his will and forces him to give evidence against his will, necessary for the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry. The concept of “coercion” includes all illegal interrogation methods that violate the principle of voluntary testimony. Compulsion to testify prevents the establishment of the truth in the case. Testimony obtained in this way becomes unreliable, which, in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation entails the recognition of evidence obtained in this way as inadmissible.
The law specifies criminally punishable methods of forcing someone to testify. This is the use of threats, blackmail or other illegal actions.
Threat
- a type of mental coercion, which is expressed, for example, in the threat of physical violence (beatings, bodily harm, murder), detention, worsening conditions of detention, prosecution for a more serious crime, destruction of property. The law does not specify who exactly the threat of harm may be directed at - the victim or his relatives. The main thing is that the threat affects the interests of the victim. In such cases, additional qualifications based on the totality of crimes are not required.
Blackmail
, as already noted in the commentary to Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a threat to disseminate disgraceful, as well as other information, the disclosure of which may damage the honor and dignity of the victim or his relatives, regardless of whether they really are such for a given person, whether they correspond to the truth or not. It is important that the victim seeks to keep this information secret, and the threat of its disclosure is used by the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry as coercion to give the necessary testimony.
Other illegal actions
are: the use of fabricated evidence, deception of a person associated with misleading the latter about the obligation to testify, detention of a witness. It is also illegal to use hypnosis, alcohol, drugs, etc. to obtain the desired readings.
The corpus delicti under Part 1 of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is formal
.
The crime is considered completed
from the moment the interrogator uses coercion, regardless of whether the subject of the crime sought to obtain false or truthful testimony, and whether the necessary testimony was obtained as a result.
Subjective side
This crime is characterized by
direct intent
. The perpetrator realizes that, abusing his official position, he is forcing the interrogated person to give the testimony he needs through threats, blackmail or other illegal actions, and thus wishes to obtain this testimony.
Subject
crimes specified in the law are:
1) investigator or person conducting the inquiry. In this case, the crime is a special type of abuse of office, which is identified as an independent element;
2) another person conducting an inquiry with the knowledge or tacit consent of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry.
These other persons
there may be operational employees; employees delivering the suspect (accused) from places of detention; investigator assistants; persons undergoing internship in investigative or inquiry bodies, etc.
In order for there to be a crime in this case, it is necessary that the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry be aware of the use of coercion by other persons to testify. In this case, the actions of the investigator or the person conducting the inquiry should be qualified as complicity in coercion to testify.
Qualified type of crime
provided for in Part 2 of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is coercion to testify, combined with the use of violence, bullying or torture.
Legislative definition of “violence”
is absent from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the doctrine of criminal law, this term traditionally combines physical and mental impact.
The use of mental influence is covered by the crime under Part 1 of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, Part 2 of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for physical coercion, covering cases of beating the victim or committing other violent acts related to inflicting physical pain on the victim or restricting his freedom (tying his hands, using handcuffs, leaving him in a closed room, etc.), causing minor harm to health, causing short-term health disorder or minor permanent loss of general ability to work, as well as causing moderate harm to health. In case of causing serious harm to health, qualification is required for the totality of crimes provided for in Art. Art. 302 and 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Mockery
as a qualifying feature, coercion to testify is a type of mental violence aimed at suppressing the will of the victim. It can be expressed in particularly humiliating treatment, cynical and gross humiliation of a person’s dignity, which causes him moral and physical suffering. For example, statements in a rude, offensive form about appearance, nationality, physical disabilities, allegedly immoral behavior of close relatives, etc.
Torture concept
as a qualifying feature of coercion to testify is disclosed in the note to Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with this norm, torture is understood as the infliction of physical or mental suffering in order to force a person to give testimony or other actions contrary to the will of a person, as well as for the purpose of punishment or other purposes.
