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) is recognized as a criminal offense throughout the world.
Objective side
Russian criminal law establishes liability for the direct commission of an act, that is, depriving a person of the opportunity to independently choose his location or restricting his free movement. In fact, this crime can be expressed in binding (imposing put), locking in a dwelling or construction of an economic purpose, forcible detention by law enforcement bodies and so on. The place of the act does not play a role, since the crime under Art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can take place both on the street, and in any institution or institution, and even at the victim’s house. Ways to hold a person are deception and / or violence (physical or psychological). Thus, within the meaning of Art. 127 of the Criminal Code, the offense is designed as formal.
One should distinguish between deprivation of liberty of a citizen and his abduction. Unlike the first, the abduction of a person involves the removal of him from his home or other habitual habitat and forcible transfer to another place.
Nature of crime
In order to criminalize an act, you need to make sure that it has an illegal nature. This means that the offender did not have the right to control the freedom of the victim. Such a right arises only in exceptional cases listed in the criminal law. In the absence of these circumstances, the act is considered illegal.
Subjective side
Illegal deprivation of liberty (Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) always implies the presence of direct intent on the offender. The violator not only realizes the fact of the victim’s deprivation of freedom of location and movement, but also wants to deprive the person of the rights that belong to him by law.
The motives of the analyzed act are not recognized as qualifying signs, which means that they can be used by a judge in individualizing criminal liability. The motive is often simple mischief, but more often in practice, actions of revenge or self-interest are observed.
Subject
To recognize an attacker as a subject of a crime, it is necessary to establish his sanity and age. According to the law, liability for illegal deprivation of liberty (Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) comes from the age of sixteen.
Officials who illegally deprived a person of their freedom of location and movement are liable in accordance with other articles of the Criminal Code. Their actions can be considered as abuse of authority, abuse of official position or as one of the crimes committed against the justice system.
Benchmarking analysis
There are three compounds, in a sense, similar to each other. This, in fact, Art. 127 of the Criminal Code, the aforementioned abduction of a citizen and hostage-taking. The difficulty in qualifying criminal offenses is that deprivation of liberty can actually progress to abduction. Everything will depend on the specific circumstances in each individual case, and, most likely, imprisonment will be part of the abduction of a person (not being an independent crime at the same time). Both of these articles should be distinguished from actions that qualify as hostage-taking. The difference lies in the objects, as well as the objective and subjective sides of the acts.
Hostage Matching
When a hostage is taken, the object is public safety, which refers to the order of life and behavior in society based on legislation and generally accepted rules, guaranteeing protection and respect for fundamental human rights. With the full implementation of this order, persons with criminal intentions are not able to infringe on the dignity, property, life and well-being of other citizens in order to negotiate with the state at their expense.
Therefore, when taking a hostage, in contrast to the considered art. 127 of the Criminal Code, in the case there are victims of a special type. The criminals have nothing to do with the victims of the capture, as the latter have nothing to do with the invaders. Hostages are needed only to force the state to listen and fulfill the demands of the attackers, and these requirements are in no way connected with the captured people. According to statistics, most often voiced demands to transfer large amounts of money, drugs, ammunition and weapons. Often, invaders need an aircraft to cross the state border.
In contrast to the analyzed article 127 of the Criminal Code, criminal hostage taking 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 spelled out 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. Hostage-taking is fraught with obvious manifestations of violence of several degrees of severity, and deprivation of liberty of a citizen and his abduction can do without violence at all.
There is another difference of Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of the considered legal norm and Art. 126. The invaders hold hostages until the state fulfills their requirements. The killing of a hostage is not carried out out of personal motives and emotional motives, but out of a desire to force state authorities to rush to make a decision.
conclusions
Thus, according to Article. 127 of the Criminal Code with comments, it can be seen that the analyzed act can not only form an independent corpus delicti, but also be an integral part of other criminally punishable acts.
It is noteworthy that the abduction of a citizen and the subsequent detention of the abducted person in a room with a violation of his right to freedom of location and movement are covered by the content of Art. 126. Russian judicial practice shows that in this case there is no need to additionally evaluate criminal acts under article 127.
As a factual event, the deprivation of liberty of a citizen is not always fraught with criminal intent and does not always constitute a criminal offense. In order to distinguish the incident of interpersonal relations from a 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. The lack of consent is considered obvious and does not require evidence in the event that a citizen is deprived of his liberty as a result of violent actions directed against him or obvious fraud by an attacker.