Translated material
Two years for two words
Deputies finally clarified what “human trafficking” is
At the end of last week, the State Duma Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Procedural Legislation finally introduced amendments to Art. 127 approx. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (trafficking in persons). The proposed rule is expected to provide a more precise interpretation of the term “trafficking in persons.” If in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation a mandatory feature of punishment for this act is the sale of a person for the purpose of exploitation, then in the new edition “human trafficking” is understood as any sale in general, as well as actions related to it.The initiator of the proposed change in the Criminal Code was the newspaper Vremya Novostey, which at one time told a scandalous story about Muscovite Lyudmila Verzhbitskaya (see Vremya Novostey, November 30, 2005) . As the investigation found out, she exchanged children for money from some women, and then transferred them to others for a higher reward. But the prosecutor’s office was unable to charge her with human trafficking because, following the letter of the law, it was impossible to explain how babies could be exploited.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs even stated then that because of this legislative “hole,” the trade in babies was actually legalized in Russia. Duma legal experts responded by first accusing law enforcement agencies of incompetence and inability to “read the law.” Later, however, the head of the Duma Committee on Legislation, Pavel Krasheninnikov, admitted the mistake and promised to correct it by the summer of 2006. However, in the end, the people’s representatives decided to do this only two years later. What prevented them from removing two “extra” words from the article of the Criminal Code earlier, one can only guess - obviously, legislators had more important bills and political concerns than solving the problem of child trafficking.
Law enforcement agencies encountered this legislative problem during the investigation of the case of previously convicted pensioner Lyudmila Verzhbitskaya, initiated in 2003. As it was established, acting under the guise of an employee of one of the medical centers, she looked for pregnant women who wanted to have an abortion, and offered them to give birth anyway, and then, in exchange for 1.5-2 thousand dollars, give the child to her. Having received the baby in her arms, the “compassionate grandmother” looked for new parents for him, who could already pay 20-25 thousand dollars. Ms. Verzhbitskaya was detained while trying to “sell” another child, the fourth known to the investigation. Prosecutors initially charged her with kidnapping and trafficking of minors. But the latter charge was later dropped.
It turned out that the Criminal Code simply does not have such an article. Existing Art. 127 (trafficking in persons) implies the exploitation of living goods, which in this case is impossible. There is no way to exploit a six-month-old child. As for the charge under the article “kidnapping,” Verzhbitskaya’s lawyer managed to convince the court that kidnapping implied at least some kind of violence, which did not occur in this case. After all, mothers gave their children to her themselves. In essence, this was also, of course, a sale, but for the same reason the law could not apply here again.
As a result, the pensioner was convicted only of arbitrariness and the use of false documents, punished with a fine of 350 thousand rubles. After the publication in Vremya Novostei, a scandal broke out; the leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office became interested in Verzhbitskaya's case, which resulted in a review of the case. As a result, the woman was found guilty of kidnapping babies and was sentenced to seven years probation.
Despite the obvious success in this matter, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was pessimistic. “In this case, the investigator was able to competently prove the fact of the child’s abduction. Nevertheless, there was clearly a purchase and sale of a child. But it is impossible to punish an attacker under this article. And there are currently about 30 such cases throughout Russia,” the Ministry of Internal Affairs said.
As it turned out, the legal incident arose after Art. 152 (trafficking of minors). It provided for up to ten years of imprisonment for the very fact of buying and selling a child. Instead, another article appeared - 127 approx. 1 (human trafficking). These changes were explained, as always, by noble intentions - increasing the security of citizens. (Before this, trafficking in minors, not adults, was considered a crime, as a result of which it was difficult to legally qualify the increasingly frequent cases of slave trading.) However, either through someone's intent or through oversight, the new article of the Criminal Code gave rise to a new problem. “In fact, child trafficking has been legalized in Russia,” the detectives said.
The head of the State Duma Committee on Legislation, Pavel Krasheninnikov, then objected: “There is no legalization of child trafficking in our country. On December 8, 2003, a law was adopted that greatly changed the Criminal Code. More than 100 amendments were made. If previously there was a “private” art. 152 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (trafficking of children), then a large and “general” art. 127 approx. 1 (trafficking in persons), which carries severe penalties. The number of the article has changed, but not its composition, and this article is read as “trafficking in persons,” and accordingly, if there is evidence of trafficking, a case must be initiated. But buying and selling is separate. What is written next should be read as “either his recruitment for the purpose of exploitation, or his transfer for the purpose of exploitation, or his harboring for the purpose of his exploitation.” This is a legal technique. And those who do not know such things should learn. This is not a problem of the Criminal Code, but of the prosecutor’s office.”
However, later, in April 2006, Mr. Krasheninnikov admitted that he was wrong: “You and I discussed this topic then. There were several councils and law enforcement practices were studied. We admit that there is such a problem, and we are ready to correct it. I hope that we will begin to consider it in the spring session.” Then the deputy even showed a draft of a new law, which proposed simply after the word “exploitation” in Art. 127 approx. 1 enter “or for selfish reasons.”
However, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office treated such an initiative with skepticism. “Why did they decide to add the phrase “for selfish reasons”? In the case of Verzhbitskaya, it was extremely difficult to prove her selfish intent . The detainees simply will not admit that they acted for selfish reasons. The same Verzhbitskaya insisted that all her actions were predetermined by love and care for the children to whom she wanted to give full-fledged families. Yes, she admitted that she took money, but she said that she spent it exclusively on the needs of children and surrogate mothers. This will not change anything,” law enforcement officials noted. Apparently, after this, officials thoroughly tackled the problem of “human trafficking” and solved it for two whole years. And this is what happened in the end.
“This bill is aimed at improving legislation in the field of combating human trafficking. The fact is that in the current version of the Criminal Code, a mandatory sign of human trafficking is the presence of a purpose of exploitation. The new version recognizes human trafficking as any sale of a person, as well as actions associated with it, such as recruitment, transportation, concealment,” said Mr. Krasheninnikov. At the same time, he noted that over the past three years, “only ten criminal cases of this kind have been investigated, which does not correspond to the real situation.”
Pavel Krasheninnikov also said that the new bill provides for the introduction of new qualifying criteria, namely the commission of this crime against a person “known to the perpetrator to be in a helpless state,” as well as against a woman “known to the perpetrator to be in a state of pregnancy.” . “Human trafficking is one of the most immoral crimes that violates the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens, and therefore in no case should remain unpunished. This is especially true for crimes against children, who are often the objects of not only purchase and sale, but also other transactions,” the parliamentarian concluded.
True, it remains unclear why it took two whole years to bring the rule of law concerning “one of the most immoral crimes” into line with common sense. After all, it was just a matter of two words.