The subject of compulsory to give statements in the context of the bill on the establishment of criminal responsibility for torture

The social conditionality of criminal liability for the use of torture is obvious. The events that took place in 2021 in the penitentiary system gave rise to urgent and serious measures. The desire of the legislator to solve this social problem, using criminal law means of influence, deserves support, provided that the form of expression of the criminal law prohibition corresponds to the content of the prohibited act.

The proposals contained in draft law No. 42307-8 "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" (in terms of establishing criminal liability for torture) put before the theory, and if the bill is adopted and practice, a number of questions, in particular, about the advisability of including in Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of a new subject – "another law enforcement officer", which, according to the explanatory note, makes it possible to prosecute employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for torture. In the article, using the example of the specified subject, the questions of the correspondence of the sign "another law enforcement officer" to other objective and subjective signs of the main corpus delicti under Part 1 of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, their essence, therefore, the scope of criminalization. On this basis, conclusions are drawn.

The purpose of the study is to identify the admissibility of including in the disposition of the norm of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of another subject, in the ability, with the help of the named change, to solve the tasks set in the bill.

The purpose of the work determined the solution of the following research tasks: analysis of the methods used by the developers of the bill to criminalize torture; establishing the essential features of the subject of coercion to testify and their interdependence with other features of this corpus delicti; clarification of the nature of the sign "another law enforcement officer"; determination of the compliance of the named feature with the content of the direct object of coercion to testify, its adequate use in the norm of Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When performing the work, general, general scientific, private scientific and special research methods were used.

The conducted research allowed us to come to the following main result: a crime under Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation encroaches on the procedural procedure for obtaining evidence in a criminal case, bearing in mind the proper subjects for their collection. Considering that each stage of the criminal process has its own legally established participants in criminal proceedings with their own role, nature and activities, and the functions they perform, “another law enforcement officer” is not one of them. There is a substitution of concepts when the procedural position of the subject of the crime is replaced by the official position.

The formulated conclusions are focused on the further development of proposals of an organizational, legal and theoretical nature, the formation of a mechanism for criminal law counteraction to the use of torture.

1. Brilliantov A.V., Kosevich N.R. [Handbook of the judge: crimes against justice]. M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House; 2008. (In Russ.)]

2. Vasil'eva A.M., Vasil'eva N.A. [Confession of guilt under duress]. Administrator suda = Court Administrator. 2012;(2):23–27. (In Russ.)]

3. Gaag I.A. [Some problems of the disposition of coercion to testify]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gos. un-ta = Bulletin of the Kemerovo State University. 2015;(4–2(64)):201–204. (In Russ.)]

4. Dvoryanskov I. [Punishment or torture: the paradox of the criminal law]. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2005;(1):13–15. (In Russ.)]

5. Epikhin A.Yu. [Cross-sectoral problems of qualification of illegal coercion to testify (Article 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel'naya praktika = Legal science and law enforcement practice. 2015;4(34):86–90. (In Russ.)]

6. Korobeev A.I. [Soviet criminal law policy: problems of criminalization and penalization]. Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. un-ta; 1987. (In Russ.)]

7. Mitin N. [Consideration and resolution of reports of crimes in institutions and bodies of the Federal Penitentiary Service]. Zakonnost' = Legality. 2013;(6(994)):57–60. (In Russ.)]

8. Pankratov V. [Responsibility for torture in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation]. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2005;(4):38–40. (In Russ.)]

9. Popov N., Popova L. [Object of the crime under Art. 302 of the Criminal Code]. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2005;(4):41–44. (In Russ.)]

10. Chuksina V.V. [Prevention of torture and related practices from a human rights perspective]. Kriminologicheskii zhurnal Baikal'skogo gos. un-ta ehkonomiki i prava = Criminological journal of the Baikal State University of Economics and Law. 2015;9(3):571–583. (In Russ.)]

11. Conley А. Torture in US Jails and Prisons: An Analysis of Solitary Confinement Under International Law. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law. 2013;7(4):415–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2013-0402.

12. Luban D., Shue H. Mental Torture: A Critique of Erasures in U.S. Law. Georgetown Law Journal. 2012;(100):823–863. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1797806.

13. Weitzer R. Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2002;(30,5):397–408. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2051480.

14. Westley W. Violence and the Police. American Journal of Sociology. 1953;(59):34–41.