“What Rape?”: All Holes in Russian Anti-Violence Laws
According to the calculations of Russian human rights organizations, only 12% of women who survived violence turn to law enforcement agencies. And of those cases that still get turned up, only 5% comes to court. Using examples of recent high-profile cases, we decided to find out how, in practice, attempts by victims of harassment, stalking, sexual or domestic violence to get protection and what gaps exist in Russian legislation end.
Text: Elizaveta Pestova, Anna Kozkina
Harassment
In March 2018, several journalists immediately accused the State Duma deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Leonid Slutsky, of harassment. The correspondent of the Russian service "Bi-bi-si" Farida Rustamova, the producer of the TV channel "Rain" Daria Zhuk and the deputy editor-in-chief of RTVi Ekaterina Kotrikadze told that they faced harassment from the deputy.
Legal consequences: The State Duma Commission on Deputy Ethics asked Leonid Slutsky to give explanations in connection with the accusations of journalists. The meeting was held behind closed doors, and as a result, the commission found no violations in the actions of the deputy. After that, several dozen publications at once decided to boycott the lower house of parliament and Slutsky personally. In the Duma, journalists were asked to contact the investigating authorities, "if there are complaints of a criminal order."
Marie Davtyan
Lawyer of the Consortium of Women's Non-Governmental Associations, attorney
In the area of harassment, we have one fat gap. There is article 133 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Forced acts of a sexual nature." But this is not exactly harassment, not exactly what is usually said. If we open the practice on this article, then the cases on it practically do not excite: it is so formulated that it is impossible to work with it. The article has two very evaluative concepts: coercion to act and state of dependence. Neither one nor the other is not decrypted in the Criminal Code, and, of course, everyone understands them in their own way. In practice, addiction is understood as a situation where a person’s life completely depends on another: if he leaves, he will immediately die. And if you depend on a person, because you are his subordinate, it is often not accepted to be taken as an addiction. The Investigative Committee is following a simple path: the victim had the opportunity to avoid it, since she did not escape — that is, she agreed to everything.
With coercion is still more difficult, because it is not entirely clear what is meant. With physical violence, everything is more or less clear - this is regarded as rape. And about the psychological violence of the Investigation Committee has no idea. Two evaluation concepts in one article lead to the fact that it does not apply at all. This is a dead article.
We have no specific provisions on harassment and harassment, and not only sexual ones, in our legislation. Roughly speaking, if someone slaps you on the pope, today it is legal. In the best case, if a talented policeman gets caught, he will assign petty hooliganism (article 20.1 of the CAO RF) - and that is not a fact. In practice, this is just nothing. We need a separate responsibility for harassment, a separate conceptual apparatus. In countries where legislation against harassment exists, the obligation to take action if harassment occurs in the workplace is imposed on the employer.
Stalking
This summer, a resident of Novosibirsk, Valeria Sukhanova, said that she was being chased by a former colleague, Konstantin Shmelyov. First, he sent her messages with "confessions in bright feelings," then, despite the request to leave alone, he waited at his home or office. Soon Shmelev threatened her and tracked her down during the holidays, making a scandal. The next six months, Shmelev did not appear, but in February of 2018 he again began to write insults and threats. Sukhanova went to the police, the persecutor apologized to her and disappeared for half a year. And in July, she was attacked near the entrance - an unknown person in a helmet poured her a bucket. The next day, she received a letter from Shmelev saying that the bucket was filled with urine, and with threats that her friends and acquaintances would find out. In a conversation with journalists, Shmelev did not deny anything, but said that the girl herself “provoked” him.
Legal consequences: In February, Sukhanova went to the police, but according to her data, she did not take any concrete actions, although she provided correspondence with threats. After the July attack, the girl filed a new application. The district police officer interviewed Shmelyov, and Sukhanova was told that they would send materials on the administrative case to the prosecutor’s office, but they didn’t tell her anything else. Also, the police warned her that they would not bring Shmelyov to criminal liability. In October, he again began to write to the girl.
At the beginning of 2016, Svetlana Kirillova, after being beaten by her partner Rustem Gadzhiyev (both names changed), went to the police and left her native Ulyanovsk. Hajiyev tracked her down and brought her back to the city by force. In Ulyanovsk, he again beat her - the woman was pregnant and she had a miscarriage. The woman moved away from Hajiyev a second time, but he tried to trick her away to Togliatti, where he himself had moved - and after refusing to be beaten again.
After Kirillova moved to Moscow, a man hacked her VKontakte page and published intimate photos, which, according to the woman, he forced her to do "as proof of his ardent love for him." After that, Hajiyev attacked Kirillov at least twice more, and also cut the brake hose at her car, which he later told her, and threatened to kill. The woman found out that for some time he tracked her location through a device to search for stolen cars, which she found in things.
Legal consequences: Kirillova in almost every case turned to the police. She filed a beating in January 2016 - Ulyanovsk police refused to open a criminal case. She appealed to the police after a miscarriage, which occurred because of the beatings - despite the medical documents, the result is the same. After the abduction attempt, Kirillov again filed an application - Hajiyeva was interviewed and released, ignoring the expert's opinion about the bruises, bruises and abrasions on the victim’s face and body. After the attack in Moscow, of the cut brakes and threats, Kirillov submitted an application to the Mozhaisky police department - the policeman refused to start a case "for lack of corpus delicti." According to the woman, the deputy head of the department, when asked how she should live, replied: "Well, what can I advise? You need to hide better." Only after the European Court of Human Rights accepted Kirillova’s complaint about the police’s inaction, according to her statement two years ago about the publication of intimate pictures, they initiated a case.
Olga Gnezdilova
Lawyer for the human rights project "Legal Initiative"
Persecution itself is not an offense in Russia unless physical harm is done. In our legislation, there is no concept of a protection order at all, that is, a ban on actions that are regarded as persecution. Recommendations in such cases - as much as possible to protect from the pursuer, block it in all messengers, not to receive calls from unknown numbers. It is imperative to preserve all threats and contact the police, enclosing printouts, write in a statement that you consider them realistic and feasible, and ask to initiate a case of the threat of murder or serious bodily harm (article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Do not be discounted and causing harm to health, if it came to depression, the woman sought medical help and received sick leave. If you don’t have the time and energy to go to the police, you can send applications by mail by registered mail and keep receipts.
Rape
Student Irina Sycheva told that she was raped on the night of September 27, 2015 in the Moscow club Ray Just Arena, where the initiation of MADI students took place. According to Sycheva, a former classmate named Stas invited her to the party; before entering the club, she, Stas and his two friends drank vodka with energetic. At some point in the club Sycheva it seemed that "the crush had begun", and in the end she was in the toilet stall. A video of what happened inside was on the Internet, and a friend of Sycheva was filming it, inviting her to a party — he subsequently climbed into a booth and raped her. In the program "Live broadcast" on the channel "Russia" Sycheva said that at first did not want to write a statement, but the video with her rape quickly spread on the Internet. In social networks, persecution of Sycheva began: many insisted that she herself "seduced" the rapists.
Legal consequences: In October 2016, Lev Kamenetsky and Stanislav Sobolevsky were sentenced for sexual abuse. In the last word, they refused to admit their guilt and accused the girl of lying. Sychev herself came to court only for her interrogation - after that she, according to a lawyer, had an emotional breakdown. Kamenetsky received nine years in a strict regime colony for violent sexual acts (clause (b) of part 3 of article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Violent acts of a sexual nature"), Sobolevsky - nine and a half under the same article, and also for "violation of privacy" (Part 1 of Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and the illegal production and trafficking of pornographic materials (paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 242 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Marie Davtyan
Much depends on whether a matter has received a resonance - this is not even a mechanism, but a certain pressure lever. We can see how society understands justice. And in cases of rape, and in cases of domestic violence, we always rest on stereotypes: “I am guilty myself”, “beats mean love”, “I was drunk in a short skirt, I provoked everyone”. Judges and policemen are the same bearers of these myths, like the rest of society. I would even say that they believe in myths more than others - when a girl comes to the investigator, he sincerely believes that she herself is to blame: "What kind of rape? She herself came to visit him." And this is a person with a higher legal education who must understand that going on a visit does not mean preliminary consent to anything.
There is article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Rape". The victim in this article is always a woman, and the abuser is always a man (theoretically, a woman can be an accomplice to the abuser, for example, in a situation where she holds the victim or participates in organizing the crime - but the man remains the specific perpetrator). And violence against men is regulated by article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Violent acts of a sexual nature" - that is, a man can be injured in it, and violence can theoretically be committed by both a man and a woman. The article "Rape" implies that it is always vaginal intercourse, and the article "Violent actions of a sexual nature" implies other forms of sexual relations - anal, oral and others.
Punishments on both articles can be the same, and the fact that the forms of sexual violence are divided into two articles is not a big deal. Although the definition of rape itself is still incorrectly formulated: it speaks only of sexual intercourse with penetration, in Western legal practice, rape is any sexual intercourse with no consent.
The principle of consent is not mentioned at all in any of these articles, and the wording "with the use of violence or with the threat of its use" in practice requires the presentation of signs of resistance from the victims. That is, in order to prove rape or sexual assault, it is necessary to have concrete signs of resistance and physical violence. But situations can be different, and we cannot impose on the injured duty to resist - this is a burden that not everybody can bear, and this is a key moment.
In Articles 131 and 132 there is a separate sign of a crime - “the use of the helpless state of the victim”, including the state of alcoholic, narcotic intoxication and so on. And the Supreme Court emphasizes that it does not matter for what reason the victim has reached this state - independently or with the help of the perpetrator. But with the state of alcoholic intoxication, the eternal problem: it is necessary to prove that his degree was such that the state of the victim was considered helpless. It is believed that if the victim could theoretically move, she was not helpless. And we understand that there are situations when a person in a state of intoxication can move, but cannot say anything articulate. If you recall the scandals of recent years associated with rape among students, the victims were told: "Yes, she was drunk, but she could act." And this is wrong, because there is a question of agreement - whether a person could give it.
When it comes to rape, we need to talk about well-established interagency cooperation between the psychological, medical services and the police. It is necessary to fight stereotypes in all these bodies, to develop manuals on the investigation of rape, including special procedures, such as testifying in court: when the victim testifies in court it is better that the defendant was not in the hall, and, for example, the confrontation is more correct go through the mirror Gesell (glass that looks like a mirror on one side. - Note ed.).
Domestic Abuse
In December last year, Dmitry Grachev in Serpukhov, near Moscow, took his wife Margarita to the forest and chopped off her hands with an ax, after which he took her to the hospital. Before that, in the fall, Margarita decided to file for divorce, after which Dmitry beat her. He began to suspect his wife of treason, and in November he took her to the forest for the first time and threatened him with a knife. After that, Margarita went to the police - but after a month the situation repeated and ended more terribly.
Legal consequences: Margarita Gracheva filed a police complaint back in November, after her husband took her to the forest for the first time. Three weeks later, the district policeman called her and said that he had a preventive conversation with Dmitry. Grachev was detained and arrested only in December, after the second attack on his wife. He is accused of two episodes of abduction, intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (paragraphs “b”, “z” of part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and the threat of murder (part 1 of article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In addition, the local precinct filed a case of negligence.
On November 5, 2016, a resident of Orla, Yana Savchuk, called the police home three times during a conflict with former partner Andrei Bochkov: she told the police that she beat her, but they did not detain him. Two weeks later, Savchuk again called the police - she wanted to get into her apartment and pick up things, but she saw Bochkova outside the house. The police witnessed their conflict: in their presence, a man shouted at Savchuk and cursed. Eyewitnesses said that neither the district police officer nor her colleagues tried to calm him down and protect the woman, but they wanted to leave as soon as possible. “Then they will make peace 38 more times, and we’ll be fools,” said the district police officer at the request of Savchuk to accept a statement about death threats. On November 17, the precinct on the next question of an agitated woman, already leaving, replied: "If you are killed, we will definitely leave, we will describe the corpse, do not worry." A few minutes after the departure of the police, Barrels beat her, and the next day she died from a head injury.
Legal consequences: According to reports, Savchuk did not take any measures at the beginning of November in the beginning of November - they only drew up a report on disorderly conduct for Bochkova for swearing in the stairwell. After the death of the woman, he was sentenced to thirteen years in a penal colony and ordered to pay compensation to the father of the deceased. The precinct brought a case of negligence, but in the summer the court returned it to the prosecutor's office.
Marie Davtyan
Theoretically, in cases of domestic violence, you can use the articles of the Criminal Code. There is “Intentional infliction of light harm to health” (article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) - but here the problem is that these are cases of “private accusation” (that is, the criminal prosecution is not initiated by the prosecutor, but by the victim or her representatives. The victim must act as an accuser - collect evidence, assign an examination, collect witness testimony, etc. - Note ed.). There is also “Intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm” (Article 112 of the Criminal Code), “Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm” (Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and “Torture” (Article 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) - this is an extremely rarely used article, but at least in some regions, the practice of it has developed.
The problem is that even if a criminal case is initiated, it practically does not protect the victims from new acts of violence, since the aggressor is not isolated from the victim in any way - neither for the period of the investigation, nor after the verdict. In this category of cases almost never impose a punishment involving deprivation of liberty. На практике это выглядит примерно так: допустим, агрессор ломает руку потерпевшей (вред здоровью средней тяжести), она обращается в полицию, расследование подобного случая может идти полгода, потом ещё суд, который длится несколько месяцев. Всё это время обвиняемый на свободе, может регулярно присылать угрозы потерпевшей, преследовать её, даже совершать новые акты насилия. Никто не сдерживает агрессора, не защищает потерпевшую. В финале агрессор получает приговор - год ограничения (а не лишения), свободы, ему просто запрещается покидать город, и он обязан регулярно являться в органы. То есть фактически человек, который сломал руку жене, никакого большого дискомфорта не испытывает.Problems and difficulties arise only in the victim.
However, when the beating was a criminal article (two years ago, by an amendment to article 116 of the Criminal Code, the beatings inflicted on relatives were transferred to the category of administrative offenses), there was a way to at least somehow protect the victims by affecting the aggressor. Having received a year of restriction of freedom, he would understand that if he had committed such an offense once more, he might end up in prison. Five thousand fine will not save the victim.
There were many drafts of a special law on domestic violence. The first one we wrote with Alexey Parshin, he protects one of the Khachaturian sisters. We have been trying to promote this law for three years already. Recently, deputy Oksana Pushkina decided that we should try to act together, and now we and her working group are once again trying to formulate the bill so that it will be adopted.
There is the position of the Duma, which needs the law to regulate almost nothing, but rather to be decorative. We say that the law should have several functions. First, law enforcement - the law should provide for ways to protect victims. We are talking about physical protection, such as security orders. The second function is preventive: if you act correctly, you may not bring the matter to criminal articles. When it becomes obvious that the situation is unwinding in the aggressive direction, we can apply measures of protection or measures of influence on the offender so that he does not do something more terrible. The third function is support. We are talking about helping the victims: psychological, legal, social. We are the last country in the Council of Europe that did not pass such a law. It operates in almost one hundred and forty countries.
Photo: julien - stock.adobe.com, alexlmx - stock.adobe.com (1, 2)