ShareState Duma adopted law on tougher punishment for actions directed once morest the security of the Russian Federation, in the third, final reading. The Fontanka correspondent asked lawyers to comment on the most vague wording of the document.
The bill adopted by the deputies introduces new articles into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: “Public calls to carry out activities directed once morest the security of the state” (280.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and “Confidential cooperation with special services of foreign states” (275.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The maximum possible punishment for them: imprisonment for up to 7 and 8 years, respectively. In addition, the document toughens the punishment for mercenarism and suggests that it is high treason for a Russian citizen to defect to the side of the enemy during an armed conflict. The participation of Russians in hostilities once morest the interests of the Russian Federation is to be punished with imprisonment for up to 20 years.
Vadim Klyuvgant, attorney, partner at Pen&Paper
Share«[Понимать под этим будут] anything that the relevant prosecution authorities and the experts who carry out their assignments want to understand. If some niche remains, theoretically not filled with other similar elements of crime, now it will be closed. That’s it, you don’t need to look for any depths here.
It will be applied selectively, but there is no news here either, all this has been happening on the rise for a long time, and recently it has been especially active. Therefore, everything is in trend: the continuation and expansion of the possibilities of the same repressive policy. This is an opportunity for selective and arbitrary application of criminal repression, otherwise I cannot comment.
Probably, you and I can reasonably assume that no foreign intelligence services will report to the Russian intelligence services regarding with whom and how they cooperate? Accordingly, all these conclusions will be made by those officials who carry out criminal prosecution in Russia. If they didn’t know (or want to say they didn’t know) regarding someone’s relationship with someone, why not call it a “confidential collaboration”? The person did not write an article, did not send a penitential letter or notice. This is all reasoning in the zone of absurdity. You want a serious legal commentary on something that is related to law only in terms of form: the title of the law, the article with a number. This is all that connects such novels in Russian legislation with the law. For a rule of law there must be legal certainty.”
Pavel Chikov, head of the Agora human rights project
Share“I think the key to [статье о призывах к действиям против безопасности РФ] – this is “obstruction by the authorities of their powers to ensure the security of the Russian Federation.” Security agencies are not just any bodies, but quite specific ones. Obviously, first of all we are talking regarding the Federal Security Service (FSB). Remember [ситуацию] with anarchist Mikhail Zhlobitsky in the FSB department for the Arkhangelsk region? Then there were many criminal cases to justify terrorism, including those once morest journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva. Basically, all the cases were for the fact that people wrote some kind of angry reviews and appeals once morest the FSB officers. It seems to me that such posts can now be qualified under the new article 280.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and all kinds of public critical statements regarding the FSB are criminalized.
Transferring information threatening security to foreigners [России], is high treason (275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The sanction of this article is from 12 to 20 years in prison. Confidential collaboration is any covert collaboration once morest security [государства], there punishment from 8 to 12 years. That is, it is a less serious crime than high treason. Accordingly, anything that does not amount to treason, but formally corresponds to “confidential cooperation” and does not include the transfer of state secrets, will be qualified under Article 275.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The articles on treason and confidential cooperation with the secret services complement each other.”
Kaloy Akhilgov, Head of Law Office Kaloy.ru
Share“In general, this is a trend towards tougher punishments for military personnel, so that, for obvious reasons, they don’t even think regarding somehow changing their position. Going to the other side is already treason. Tougher punishments for espionage, for treason itself – the sanctions are also changing, and so on. Of course, scientists will also get it. As we understand, now our main persons involved under the article on treason are scientists or military journalists and observers, that is, people who in one way or another relate to information regarding military and technological achievements.
I think the reason or reason for such changes [в законодательстве] steel including Ukrainian events. All these requests, which arose following the start of the military special operation, left some gaps for the servicemen. Now they are closed by making these changes.
Regarding confidential cooperation [с иностранными спецслужбами], its criterion is defined very broadly. Anything, any interaction can be considered cooperation. Even if they are journalists, the investigation may interpret this as interaction with journalists who work for the special services, and so on. Everything remains at the discretion of the investigation, as well as in the case of public calls for action once morest the security of the Russian Federation. What is anti-security activity? What are public calls for such activities? These are questions that are currently unanswered in the legislation.
The adoption of these laws requires, first of all, clarification. Probably, the Supreme Court should deal with this – issue some kind of plenum or other act, which will indicate what this means and how to interpret this or that term. Unfortunately, practice shows that first the application of articles takes place, and only then clarification or clarification. A striking example here is the so-called “Dadin article” (212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). She, too, was first used for persecution, and then the Supreme Court said, “No, that’s a little inappropriate.” I’m afraid the same thing will happen here.
I have no doubts that the bill will be approved by the Federation Council and the president. This is not a decision of the State Duma, but changes that came in concert from several departments of the executive branch, including the security forces and the presidential administration. Deputies simply draw up the laws in the right form, and the idea itself comes down from above.”
Alina Ampelonskaya, Fontanka.ru
