Every citizen has the right to personal freedom guaranteed by the legislator. Accordingly, unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) throughout the world is recognized as a criminal offense.
The Russian criminal law establishesresponsibility for the direct commission of the act, that is, depriving the person of the opportunity to choose the location or restriction of his free movement. In fact, this crime can be expressed in linking (imposing puts), locking in a dwelling or building an economic purpose, forcibly detaining law enforcement agencies and so on. The place of commission of the act does not play a role, since the crime according to the analyzed art. 127 of the Criminal Code can take place both on the street, and in any institution or institution and even at home with the victim. Ways to keep a person are deception and / or violence (physical or psychological). Thus, in the sense of Art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the offense is designed as a formal one.
It is necessary to distinguish deprivation of a citizen of freedom andhis abduction. Unlike the first, kidnapping implies the removal of a person from a home or other habitual habitat and forcible transfer to another place.
To recognize an act as a criminal offense, one mustmake sure that it is of an illegal nature. This means that the offender did not have the right to dispose of the victim's freedom. Such a right arises only in exceptional cases listed in the criminal law. In the absence of these circumstances, the act is considered illegal.
Illegal deprivation of liberty (art. 127 of the Criminal Code) always presupposes that the perpetrator has a direct intent. The perpetrator not only realizes the fact that the victim is deprived of the freedom of locating and moving, but also wants to deprive a person of the rights belonging to him by law.
The motives of the act being analyzed are not recognizedqualifying signs, and therefore can be used by a judge in the individualization of criminal responsibility. Motive is often a simple mischief, but more often in practice, there are acts of revenge or self-interest.
To recognize an attacker as a subjectit is required to establish his sanity and age. Under the law, responsibility for illegal imprisonment (Article 127 of the Criminal Code) comes from the age of sixteen.
Officials who unlawfully deprived a personfreedom of location and movement, are liable under other articles of the Criminal Code. Their actions can be considered as excess of authority, abuse of office or as one of the crimes committed against the justice system.
There are three compounds, in a certain sensesimilar to each other. This, in fact, art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the aforementioned kidnapping of a citizen and the taking of a hostage. The difficulty in qualifying criminally punishable acts is that deprivation of liberty can actually progress to kidnapping. Everything will depend on the specific circumstances in each individual case, and most likely, the deprivation of liberty will be part of the kidnapping of a person (not being an independent crime at the same time). Both of these articles should be distinguished from actions classified as hostage taking. The difference lies in the objects, as well as the objective and subjective aspects of the deeds.
When capturing a hostage, the object ispublic safety, which is understood as the order of life and behavior based on legislation and generally accepted rules, guaranteeing protection and respect for basic human rights. With the full implementation of this procedure, persons with criminal intentions do not have the opportunity to encroach on the dignity, property, life and well-being of other citizens in order to negotiate with the state at their expense.
Therefore, when capturing a hostage, in contrast toconsidered art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the case of victims of a special type. Criminals have nothing to do with the victims of capture, as the latter have nothing to do with the invaders. The hostages are needed only to compel the state to listen to and fulfill the demands of the perpetrators, and these requirements are in no way connected with the captured people. According to statistics, most often voiced the demands to transfer large sums of money, narcotic substances, ammunition and weapons. Often, the invaders need an aircraft to cross the state border.
In contrast to the analyzed art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the criminal capture of hostages is characterized by a greater scale of illegal activities, the emergence of panic among people, the violation of constitutional rights to a safe life. The method is also quite specific and even registered in the title of the article: capture. The wording is clear: Art. 206 of the Criminal Code describes a much more dangerous crime than depriving a citizen of freedom or his abduction. The capture of a hostage is associated with obvious manifestations of violence of several degrees of severity, and depriving a citizen of freedom and his abduction can do without violence at all.
There is another difference between Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from the legal norm in question and Art. 126. The invaders hold hostages until the state fulfills their demands. The killing of a hostage does not come from personal motives and emotional motives, but from a desire to force state authorities to rush into making a decision.
Thus, according to Art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with comments it is clear that the act under analysis can not only form an independent part of the crime, but also be an integral part of other criminally punishable acts.
It is noteworthy that the kidnapping of a citizen andThe subsequent detention of the abducted person in a room with violation of his right to freedom of location and movement is covered by Art. 126. The Russian court practice shows that in such a case there is no need to additionally evaluate criminal actions also under Article 127.
As an actual event, the deprivation of a citizenfreedom is not always associated with criminal intent and does not always constitute a criminal offense. In order to distinguish between the case of interpersonal relations and the crime, it is necessary to establish and prove the lack of consent of a citizen to deprive him of his freedom of location and movement. Absence of consent is considered obvious and does not require proof if the deprivation of the citizen of freedom occurs as a result of violent actions directed against him or obvious deceit on the part of the attacker.
