Article 321 of the Russian Criminal Code stipulates punishment for “disorganizing the activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society.” We are talking about institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service - pre-trial detention centers, temporary detention centers, colonies, as well as army guardhouses.
The article covers three compositions. Its first part concerns the responsibility of a prisoner for using violence that is not dangerous to life or health (or the threat of such violence) to another convicted person in order to prevent his correction or out of revenge for assisting the administration. Such actions are punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.
The sanction of part two of Article 321 of the Criminal Code also provides for a real term of up to five years; it talks about similar actions, but in relation not to prisoners, but to employees of colonies and pre-trial detention centers.
Part three threatens imprisonment from five to 12 years for violence dangerous to the life of the victim or committed by a group against a prisoner or employee of the institution.
The article does not allow punishments alternative to imprisonment.
Theoretically, employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service could also become accused under Article 321 of the Criminal Code, but none of the human rights activists and lawyers with whom Mediazona spoke had heard of such cases. “These are crimes against state power. It’s hard to imagine that an employee himself would speak out against the administration of the penal colony,” explains Yekaterinburg lawyer Alexey Bushmakov.
Article 321 was adopted in 1996 along with the first edition of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The provisions of the article in that version were similar to modern ones, only the maximum term for violence that was not dangerous to the life of the victim was ten years in prison instead of the current five. The last changes to the article were made in 2001.
"Camp riots, uprisings, mass insubordination"
Compositions similar to those described in Article 321 of the Russian Criminal Code were mentioned in one form or another in the criminal codes of the Union republics. However, in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926, the word “disorganization” appeared only once in relation to military crimes.
Soviet legal thought did not think of applying the concept of “disorganization” to camp realities until the early 1930s. The possibility of abolishing workday credits for “disorganizing” prisoners was first discussed in the Correctional Labor Code of 1933. In June 1939, the NKVD issued an order “On ending the practice of counting working days and parole,” which caused indignation among prisoners. In this regard, the 3rd department of the Gulag a month later issued a circular “On strengthening the fight against escapes and violations of the camp regime,” which obligated the camp administration, within 10 days after receiving this document, to identify malicious violators who do not fulfill production standards, organizers of group escapes and “excesses,” agitators for disrupting production assignments and “other disruptors of camp life and production,” and then bring them to trial. According to the Central State Archive of the October Revolution of the USSR, during the nine months that the circular was in effect, 4,033 people were tried on the basis of the document, 201 of them were sentenced to death, but for some the death sentence was commuted to new terms of imprisonment.
Chairman of the Human Rights Council Alexander Cherkasov believes that in the Criminal Code of 1926, an article similar to the modern 321st would simply be redundant.
“I’m not sure that then there was any need to identify separate elements of crime if it was in the zone. The existing clauses of Article 58 were sufficient to impute something to a person. For example, sabotage, sabotage,” says Cherkasov.
Until 1960, riots in prison camps could be prosecuted under Article 59.2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR - participation in mass riots, such as pogroms, destruction of routes and means of communication, release of those arrested, arson, if the participants in the riots were armed. The maximum punishment under this article was execution.
True, in 1927 the wording of the article changed: now it spoke of “mass riots accompanied by pogroms, destruction of railway tracks or other means of communication and communication, murders, arson and other similar actions.” For example, participants in the Norilsk uprising of 1953 were tried under this article.
Finally, in 1962, Article 77.1 was introduced into the Criminal Code of the RSFSR - actions that disrupt the work of correctional labor institutions. The article was included in the chapter “Crimes of State” along with treason, espionage, terrorism and disclosure of state secrets.
Initially, Article 77.1 concerned only “particularly dangerous recidivists” and those convicted of serious crimes who terrorize convicts who “have taken the path of correction,” or who have attacked administration employees, or who have organized or participated in groups for these purposes. Punishment is from eight to 15 years in prison or the death penalty. In the final version of 1984, the article already had two elements: other people serving sentences were added to repeat offenders. For similar actions they faced from three to eight years in prison.
Despite the fact that the administration in those years often threatened those convicted with Article 77.1, in practice it was rarely used and only for compelling reasons, recalls human rights activist, Soviet dissident Alexander Podrabinek, who in 1978 was sentenced to exile, and three years later - to 3 ,5 years in a forced labor colony.
“This article was a firing squad, up to the tower, up to the death penalty. It was applied to those who tried to resist the lawlessness of the camp administration,” says Podrabinek. — I don’t know of cases when this article would be applied for minor reasons. Informally, it required some serious action, formally - just disorganization. The disposition of the article is so rubbery. Anything can be understood as disorganization: you didn’t show up for the divorce, you sent an illegal letter. But in practice it was still used in more serious cases in those days. These are camp riots, uprisings, mass insubordination, strikes, mass hunger strikes.”
The human rights activist believes that it was not least because of this that in 1983 a new article 188.3 was introduced into the Criminal Code of the RSFSR - malicious disobedience to the requirements of the administration of a correctional labor institution. The maximum penalty was five years in prison.
“The article is more lenient both in terms of sanctions and the procedure for application. They tried to blame me for this article at the end of my sentence, but they didn’t succeed, there was an insufficient reason: I tore off my shoulder straps, beat me a little, but he (the colony employee - MZ) was himself to blame. I didn’t fall under it completely by accident, because it came into force on January 1, 1984, and I was released on December 26,” says Podrabinek.
As the human rights activist notes, the employees of the colonies themselves, in which cases of “disorganization” took place, bore only disciplinary responsibility. “But not because they killed a prisoner, or beat him, or tortured him. And for the fact that they didn’t hurry up and warn in time,” says Podrabinek. — The riots were provoked only by this (cruel treatment of a prisoner - MZ). Prisoners, they are not suicides, they will not go to an open protest, to a riot just like that. A camp riot, or a strike, or a hunger strike, never happens out of the blue. This is always a step of desperation, a last resort. A riot is always a response to camp lawlessness.”
At the same time, the human rights activist adds, contradictions between the “red” and “black” parties in the colony could also lead to riots: “Behind this, as a rule, is the camp administration, which is trying to put people who cooperate with it above everyone else. But this (riot - MZ) is always a response to some kind of systematic violence and humiliation.”
Practice: numbers
Since 2010, the number of convicts under Part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for violence against other convicts and threats against them, has been consistently decreasing. In 2010, 40 people were convicted under this part, in 2015 - only nine, the minimum for the last five years. Almost all sentences involved imprisonment; most of them are for terms of up to two years inclusive. Those convicted under the second part of the article generally receive the same sentences.
The number of people convicted of violence against an employee of a colony or pre-trial detention center (Part 2 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code) has, on the contrary, increased in recent years: from 124 people in 2010 to 177 people in 2015.
From 2010 to 2015, from 2010 to 2015, from 12 to 28 people per year were tried for violence dangerous to life or committed by an organized group (Part 3 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code). The number of convicts, according to statistics from the Judicial Department, reached its maximum in 2015. In all cases the sentences involved imprisonment.
In all three cases, in the last five years, courts have acquitted extremely rarely; in the first part, there were no acquittals at all. In addition, under parts 2 and 3 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code, the court sent from four to six people annually to forced treatment. The exception was 2013 - then no coercive measures were applied to anyone. The accused under Part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code has been sent for compulsory treatment only once over the past five years.
Judicial practice under Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 3, 2019 N 48-APU19-14
2) December 2, 2016 by the Kopeysk City Court of the Chelyabinsk Region under Part 2 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years 6 months of imprisonment, using Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years in prison, convicted under Part 1 of Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 63-FZ of June 13, 1996) for 4 years in prison.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 30, 2020 N 255-O
1. By the verdict of the district court dated May 13, 2022, handed down by a single judge, citizen L.A. Tregubov was convicted of committing, while serving a sentence of imprisonment, a crime provided for in part two of Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Believing that his criminal case should be considered by a court with the participation of a jury, the convict appealed the decision adopted following the preliminary hearing of March 21, 2022 to schedule a court hearing, which also denied the defense’s requests to obtain evidence and to consider cases involving juries. By the appeal ruling of the regional court dated May 23, 2022, the proceedings on the appeal of L.A. Tregubov was terminated due to the fact that at the time of its consideration a guilty verdict was passed against him, and the contested resolution did not contain any decisions subject to independent appeal, taking into account the provisions of part seven of Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 7, 2018 N 21-APU18-3
K. convicted: 1) - April 7, 2006 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia under Part 2 of Art. 209, part 3 art. 222, part 2 art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 9 years in prison; 2) - July 3, 2008 by the Kola District Court of the Murmansk Region under Part 1 of Art. 321, part 2 art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 6 years 6 months of imprisonment, released on December 31, 2014 after serving his sentence, accused under Part 2 of Art. 208, part 3 art. 222, part 3 art. 222.1, art. 317, part 1 art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2019 N 205-APU19-14
sentenced to imprisonment for committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for a period of 10 years, for committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of July 6, 2016 N 375-FZ), for a period of 8 years, and on the basis of Part 3 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partial addition of the imposed punishments, finally sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment in a maximum security correctional colony.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2017 N 5-APU17-2
- July 18, 2007 under Part 2 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the basis of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 9 years 9 months of imprisonment (taking into account the resolution of December 20, 2012), released after serving the sentence on December 13, 2013,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 30, 2017 N 72-APU17-10
4. April 23, 2007 under Art. 321 part 2, 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 4 years 6 months of imprisonment, released on October 21, 2011 after serving the sentence - convicted under paragraph “g” of part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 18 years of imprisonment with serving in a special regime correctional colony with restriction of freedom for a period of 2 years with the establishment of the following restrictions: do not leave your home after 10 p.m., do not visit public places, do not change your chosen place of residence and do not travel abroad territory of a municipality without the consent of the penal inspection, to appear twice a month for registration at the penal inspection, which supervises the serving of a sentence of restriction of freedom by a convicted person.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2017 N 56-APU17-12
4) by the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Vladivostok dated December 8, 2006 under Part 2 of Art. 321, art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years in prison, 5) by the verdict of the Nakhodka City Court of the Primorsky Territory dated April 24, 2007 under Part 2 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of Part 5 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 4 years 3 months of imprisonment, released from prison after serving the sentence on 03/05/2011,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 2017 N 203-APU17-22
sentenced to imprisonment: for a term of 12 years with restriction of freedom for a period of 2 years for committing a crime under paragraphs “a”, “d”, part 2 of Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; for a period of 5 years for committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. and part 3 of Art. 313 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; for a period of 8 years for committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 25, 2018 N 66-APU18-8
- part 2 art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode in relation to Z. and K.) to 2 years; - part 3 art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode in relation to K.) to 3 years; on the basis of Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for aggregation of crimes by partial addition of punishments, finally to 4 years in a general regime correctional colony;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 15, 2020 N 4-APU19-47SP
- according to Part 3 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 8 years; - according to Part 2 of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 5 years; - according to Part 3 of Art. , paragraphs “a”, “e”, “i”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 10 years with restriction of freedom for 1 year;
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 29, 2020 N 2567-O
According to the applicant, part three of article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contradicts articles 17 (part 1), 18, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 45, 46 (part 1), 55 (part 3) and 71 (point “c”) The Constitution of the Russian Federation, since - according to the meaning given to it by law enforcement practice - allows the prosecution of accused persons held in custody, contrary to the systemic connection with the first part of the same article, which provides for the punishability of actions only of persons sentenced to imprisonment.
"Retaliation"
In 2007, human rights activist Valery Abramkin, speaking at the III All-Russian Congress for the Defense of Human Rights, spoke about Article 321 of the Criminal Code. “The modern Gulag is worse than Stalin’s Gulag. And the application of Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to prisoners who, while protesting against the actions of correctional officers, cause physical harm to themselves, leads to the non-peaceful nature of protests, which is what we have been seeing lately,” Novaya Gazeta quoted Abramkin as saying.
The Civil Rights Committee reported on cases of fabrication of cases under Article 321 of the Criminal Code back in 2009 and described three similar cases.
- Do you want me to add more time to you? - an employee of the Rostov IK-10 addresses a prisoner who is squatting with his hands tied behind his back.
- No need.
- ***[interjection], maybe we can get him 321, Anatolyich? - suggests the second employee.
This dialogue was included in a video that appeared online at the end of 2012. In the six-minute recording, several FSIN employees beat a prisoner, obscenely insulting and humiliating him - the jailers are unhappy that the prisoner complained about the actions of one of them.
The founder of Gulagu.net, Vladimir Osechkin, believes that this scene best characterizes the current practice of applying Article 321 of the Criminal Code to prisoners, and calls it repressive. “Every convict faces the threat of a new sentence if they do something that contradicts the will of the jailers,” Osechkin emphasizes.
According to him, it is not difficult for employees of colonies or pre-trial detention centers to fabricate such a case: “A certificate of injury and the testimony of several jailers that a certain convict hit one of the employees is enough. Today, doctors in the colony are dependent on the employees; they can issue the appropriate certificate of examination. And this bruise can be caused by employees during training.”
Victims of abuse of this article, as a rule, are prisoners who file complaints with various authorities. “They (colony and pre-trial detention center employees - MOH) can easily do this out of a sense of revenge or out of envy if a beautiful wife comes to see him in a convertible,” says Osechkin.
According to the human rights activist, FSIN employees often record on recorders and CCTV cameras the moment when a convict reacts aggressively to beatings or insults, and turn off the video recording devices when it is convenient for them. At the same time, prisoners are deprived of the opportunity to somehow record what is happening to them. “An ordinary prisoner does not have any immunity, because the employees have learned to turn off CCTV cameras and fabricate reports about the alleged lack of electricity, they have learned to cut out specific parts of the video, and turn the cameras to the side. The convicted person has no evidence base. The convict has neither a voice recorder, nor a camera, nor video cameras with him,” notes Osechkin.
The head of the Ural human rights group, Nikolai Shchur, says that in the Chelyabinsk region, charges of disorganization are usually brought against participants in prison protests, often peaceful ones. At the same time, the human rights activist believes that in the case of riot participants in pre-trial detention center No. 1 in Chelyabinsk, the application of the article was justified: “They were indeed accompanied by damage to property, arson, and so on.”
Currently, a trial is underway in the Chelyabinsk region regarding the 2012 protests in Kopeisk IK-6. Two dozen prisoners were charged under Article 321 of the Criminal Code. Shchur notes that the protest at that time was exclusively peaceful. “They are accused of inciting other convicts to mass riots among more than 100 unidentified persons. All this does not stand up to criticism,” says the Ural human rights activist.
FSIN employees often use the article to hide their own violations, he believes. “Most often the goal is the same - to hide the crime that they commit themselves in this colony. And blame everything on the prisoners,” Shchur is convinced. “The overwhelming number of indictments are fictitious, fabricated, far-fetched and created precisely in order to hide the crimes of investigators, prosecutors, judges and, at most, employees of these institutions.”
At the same time, according to Vladimir Osechkin, Article 321 of the Criminal Code is used relatively rarely to put pressure on prisoners: more often, cases are initiated under Articles 212 of the Criminal Code (mass riots) in the case of collective protests and 306 of the Criminal Code (false denunciation) - against convicts who complain on the actions of the administration.
“321 is a rather rare article, because if disorganization is officially recorded, the employees themselves will also have violations. These are internal checks and so on. As a rule, materials on 321 are started when the convicted person shows characteristic signs of beatings, and he managed to inform members of the PMC, journalists, and Gulagu.net coordinators about this. When they realize that a real pre-investigation check and the initiation of a criminal case may loom ahead of them, then they all immediately sit down and write carbon-copy testimony until 12 at night, legalize the use of special means as part of the suppression of a criminal who was disorganizing the work of the institution. This is a response measure,” explains Osechkin.
A lawyer from Yekaterinburg, Alexey Bushmakov, represented the interests of a prisoner who was accused under Part 2 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code and was eventually sentenced to four years in prison - during a search, a woman hit a security department employee in the face. Bushmakov claims that the prisoner was provoked: before this, the colony staff mocked his client for a long time. “This has been proven in court,” says the lawyer. “They wanted to punish her for her rebellious nature; she is very fair and seeks the truth everywhere. You see, if something happens in a colony, the prisoner is to blame, not the FSIN employee. This is a presumption of guilt of the convicted person.”
Assessing the practice under Article 321, Bushmakov agrees: the norm of the Criminal Code is often abused. “Provocations are a very common occurrence,” the defender admits.
Commentary to Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The main object of the crime is the normal activity of institutions that ensure isolation from society. An additional subject is human health.
Institutions that ensure isolation from society primarily include institutions that carry out punishment in the form of imprisonment. In accordance with Art. 16 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, such institutions are: educational colony, medical correctional institution, correctional colonies of general, strict or special regime, prison, disciplinary military unit.
They also provide isolation from society:
— pre-trial detention centers of the penal system;
— temporary detention centers for suspects and accused of internal affairs bodies;
— temporary detention centers for suspects and accused border agencies of the Federal Security Service.
The places of detention of suspects and accused may be institutions of the penal system that carry out criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment.
In cases where detention on suspicion of committing a crime is carried out in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by captains of sea vessels on long voyages, or by the heads of wintering quarters during the absence of transport connections with wintering quarters, the suspects are kept in premises that are determined by the specified officials and are adapted for these purposes. goals
———————————
See: art. 7 of the Federal Law of July 15, 1995 N 103-FZ “On the detention of suspects and accused of committing crimes” // SZ RF. 1995. N 29. Art. 2759.
In accordance with Art. 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a convicted person is an accused person against whom a guilty verdict has been passed.
The objective side of the crime is expressed in action. Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes liability for the use of violence that is not dangerous to the life or health of the convicted person, or the threat of using violence against him in order to prevent the convicted person from reforming or out of revenge for the assistance he provided to the administration of an institution or body of the penal system.
In Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not establish which categories of convicted persons are subject to protection in accordance with the norm in question. The law does not determine the type of punishment to which the victim was sentenced. However, since responsibility has been established for disorganizing the activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society, we can only talk about convicts serving a sentence of imprisonment (for a certain term or life imprisonment).
It should be noted that Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not establish liability for the use of violence against other categories of persons who are in institutions that provide isolation from society, for example, suspects, accused, detainees.
Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation covers the use of violence that is not dangerous to life or health. The concept of this type of violence is given in paragraph 21 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 No. 29 “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery.” Violence that is not dangerous to life or health is understood as beatings or other violent acts involving the infliction of physical pain on the victim or the restriction of his freedom (tying his hands, using handcuffs, leaving him in a closed room, etc.).
———————————
Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2003. N 2.
The corpus delicti provided for in Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is formal. The act will be completed from the moment the action is completed. Socially dangerous consequences are not included in the design of this crime.
The subjective side is characterized by direct intent. A mandatory feature of the subjective side of the crime is the goal of preventing the convicted person from reforming, i.e. leading a law-abiding lifestyle, or revenge for assistance provided by the convicted person to the administration of an institution or body of the penal system.
The general subject of the crime is a sane person who has reached the age of sixteen.
Part 2 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes liability for the same acts committed against an employee of a place of deprivation of liberty or a place of detention in connection with his official activities or his relatives.
The difference between this crime and the previous one lies in the identity of the victim and the motive for committing the crime. The victim in this case is an employee of the place of deprivation of liberty or a place of detention or his relatives. The last concept was discussed earlier.
In accordance with Art. 12 of the Federal Law of July 15, 1995 N 103-FZ “On the detention of suspects and accused of committing crimes” employees of places of detention include ordinary and commanding personnel of internal affairs bodies, employees of institutions and bodies of the penal system, military personnel of the federal security service and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation performing duties to ensure the regime of detention.
Article 24 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1993 N 5473-1 “On institutions and bodies executing criminal penalties in the form of imprisonment” determines that employees of the penal system are persons with special ranks of employees of the penal system.
———————————
Gazette of the SND and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 1993. N 33. Art. 1316.
The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent. A mandatory feature of the subjective side is the motive for committing the act - the connection with the employee’s performance of his official activities.
Persons under sixteen years of age who have committed the act in question are subject to liability under articles establishing liability for crimes against the person.
The qualified crime is provided for in Part 3 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The qualifying feature is the commission of acts provided for in Part 1 or 2 of this article, by an organized group (Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or with the use of violence dangerous to life or health (violence resulting in the infliction of grave and moderate harm to health, as well as infliction of minor harm to health, causing a short-term health disorder or a minor permanent loss of general ability to work, as well as violence, although it did not cause harm to health, but at the time of infliction created a real danger to life or health).
Causing grievous bodily harm, resulting through negligence in the death of the victim, is not covered by the crime in question and requires additional qualification under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The murder of an employee of a place of imprisonment or a place of detention or a convicted person in order to prevent his correction or out of revenge for his performance of a public duty, committed by a person serving a sentence of imprisonment or being held in custody, must be qualified, in addition to the relevant part of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, under Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for disruption of the normal activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society.
